Cargando…

Sacroiliac joint stability: Finite element analysis of implant number, orientation, and superior implant length

AIM: To analyze how various implants placement variables affect sacroiliac (SI) joint range of motion. METHODS: An experimentally validated finite element model of the lumbar spine and pelvis was used to simulate a fusion of the SI joint using various placement configurations of triangular implants...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lindsey, Derek P, Kiapour, Ali, Yerby, Scott A, Goel, Vijay K
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Baishideng Publishing Group Inc 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5859196/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29564210
http://dx.doi.org/10.5312/wjo.v9.i3.14
_version_ 1783307772024061952
author Lindsey, Derek P
Kiapour, Ali
Yerby, Scott A
Goel, Vijay K
author_facet Lindsey, Derek P
Kiapour, Ali
Yerby, Scott A
Goel, Vijay K
author_sort Lindsey, Derek P
collection PubMed
description AIM: To analyze how various implants placement variables affect sacroiliac (SI) joint range of motion. METHODS: An experimentally validated finite element model of the lumbar spine and pelvis was used to simulate a fusion of the SI joint using various placement configurations of triangular implants (iFuse Implant System(®)). Placement configurations were varied by changing implant orientation, superior implant length, and number of implants. The range of motion of the SI joint was calculated using a constant moment of 10 N-m with a follower load of 400 N. The changes in motion were compared between the treatment groups to assess how the different variables affected the overall motion of the SI joint. RESULTS: Transarticular placement of 3 implants with superior implants that end in the middle of the sacrum resulted in the greatest reduction in range of motion (flexion/extension = 73%, lateral bending = 42%, axial rotation = 72%). The range of motions of the SI joints were reduced with use of transarticular orientation (9%-18%) when compared with an inline orientation. The use of a superior implant that ended mid-sacrum resulted in median reductions of (8%-14%) when compared with a superior implant that ended in the middle of the ala. Reducing the number of implants, resulted in increased SI joint range of motions for the 1 and 2 implant models of 29%-133% and 2%-39%, respectively, when compared with the 3 implant model. CONCLUSION: Using a validated finite element model we demonstrated that placement of 3 implants across the SI joint using a transarticular orientation with superior implant reaching the sacral midline resulted in the most stable construct. Additional clinical studies may be required to confirm these results.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5859196
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Baishideng Publishing Group Inc
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-58591962018-03-21 Sacroiliac joint stability: Finite element analysis of implant number, orientation, and superior implant length Lindsey, Derek P Kiapour, Ali Yerby, Scott A Goel, Vijay K World J Orthop Basic Study AIM: To analyze how various implants placement variables affect sacroiliac (SI) joint range of motion. METHODS: An experimentally validated finite element model of the lumbar spine and pelvis was used to simulate a fusion of the SI joint using various placement configurations of triangular implants (iFuse Implant System(®)). Placement configurations were varied by changing implant orientation, superior implant length, and number of implants. The range of motion of the SI joint was calculated using a constant moment of 10 N-m with a follower load of 400 N. The changes in motion were compared between the treatment groups to assess how the different variables affected the overall motion of the SI joint. RESULTS: Transarticular placement of 3 implants with superior implants that end in the middle of the sacrum resulted in the greatest reduction in range of motion (flexion/extension = 73%, lateral bending = 42%, axial rotation = 72%). The range of motions of the SI joints were reduced with use of transarticular orientation (9%-18%) when compared with an inline orientation. The use of a superior implant that ended mid-sacrum resulted in median reductions of (8%-14%) when compared with a superior implant that ended in the middle of the ala. Reducing the number of implants, resulted in increased SI joint range of motions for the 1 and 2 implant models of 29%-133% and 2%-39%, respectively, when compared with the 3 implant model. CONCLUSION: Using a validated finite element model we demonstrated that placement of 3 implants across the SI joint using a transarticular orientation with superior implant reaching the sacral midline resulted in the most stable construct. Additional clinical studies may be required to confirm these results. Baishideng Publishing Group Inc 2018-03-18 /pmc/articles/PMC5859196/ /pubmed/29564210 http://dx.doi.org/10.5312/wjo.v9.i3.14 Text en ©The Author(s) 2018. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This article is an open-access article which was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial.
spellingShingle Basic Study
Lindsey, Derek P
Kiapour, Ali
Yerby, Scott A
Goel, Vijay K
Sacroiliac joint stability: Finite element analysis of implant number, orientation, and superior implant length
title Sacroiliac joint stability: Finite element analysis of implant number, orientation, and superior implant length
title_full Sacroiliac joint stability: Finite element analysis of implant number, orientation, and superior implant length
title_fullStr Sacroiliac joint stability: Finite element analysis of implant number, orientation, and superior implant length
title_full_unstemmed Sacroiliac joint stability: Finite element analysis of implant number, orientation, and superior implant length
title_short Sacroiliac joint stability: Finite element analysis of implant number, orientation, and superior implant length
title_sort sacroiliac joint stability: finite element analysis of implant number, orientation, and superior implant length
topic Basic Study
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5859196/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29564210
http://dx.doi.org/10.5312/wjo.v9.i3.14
work_keys_str_mv AT lindseyderekp sacroiliacjointstabilityfiniteelementanalysisofimplantnumberorientationandsuperiorimplantlength
AT kiapourali sacroiliacjointstabilityfiniteelementanalysisofimplantnumberorientationandsuperiorimplantlength
AT yerbyscotta sacroiliacjointstabilityfiniteelementanalysisofimplantnumberorientationandsuperiorimplantlength
AT goelvijayk sacroiliacjointstabilityfiniteelementanalysisofimplantnumberorientationandsuperiorimplantlength