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...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
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 |