Biomechanical Simulation and Analysis of Scoliosis Correction Using a Fusionless Intravertebral Epiphyseal Device
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Computer simulations to analyze the biomechanics of a novel compression-based fusionless device (hemistaple) that does not cross the disc for the treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. OBJECTIVE: To biomechanically model, simulate, and analyze the hemistaple action using a human finite element model (FEM). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: A new fusionless growth sparing instrumentation device (hemistaple), which locally compresses the growth plate without spanning the disc, was previously developed and successively tested on different animal models. METHODS: Patient-specific FEMs of the spine, rib cage, and pelvis were built using radiographs of 10 scoliotic adolescents (11.7 ± 0.9 yr; Cobb thoracic: 35° ± 7°, lumbar: 24° ± 6°). A validated algorithm allowed simulating the growth (0.8-1.1 mm/yr/vertebra) and growth modulation process (Hueter-Volkmann principle) during a period of 2 years. Four instrumentation configurations on the convex curves were individually simulated (Config 1: 5 thoracic vertebrae with hemistaples on superior endplates; Config 2: same as Config 1 with hemistaples on both endplates; Config 3: same as Config 1 + 4 lumbar vertebrae; Config 4: same as Config 2 + 4 lumbar vertebrae). RESULTS: Without hemistaples, on average the thoracic and lumbar Cobb angles, respectively, progressed from 35° to 56° and 24° to 30°, whereas the vertebral wedging at curve apices progressed from 5° to 12°. With the hemistaple Config 1, the Cobb angles progressed but were limited to 42° and 26°, whereas the wedging ended at 8°. With Config 3, Cobb and wedging were kept nearly constant (38°, 21°, 7°). With hemistaples on both endplates (Config 2, Config 4), the Cobb and wedging were all reduced (thoracic Cobb for Config 2 and 4: 24° and 15°; lumbar Cobb: 21° and 11°; wedging: 2° and 1°). CONCLUSION: This study suggests that the hemistaple has the biomechanical potential to control the scoliosis progression and highlights the importance of the instrumentation configuration to correct the spinal deformities. It biomechanically supports the new fusionless device concept as an alternative for the early treatment of idiopathic scoliosis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 5.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".