Background: Scoliosis is a deformity of the vertebral column, and shape-changing and deformation of the spine are some critical factors that can cause this abnormality. This condition causes some problems like deflection of the spine in the coronal plane toward medial or lateral. Cobb angle is a measurement for the investigation of the severity of this condition. There are several effective therapies suggested for the reduction of the Cobb angle for patients who has this abnormality. It has suggested that before applying external forces to correct this condition, biomechanical evaluation of this deformity, can be useful during diagnosis.
Methods: The purpose of this study is the evaluation of Cobb angle correction using external forces. For this aim first, the dimensional data of the patient’s vertebrae are extracted from CT-scan images using Mimics software, and the vertebral column modeled in Catia software for finite element analysis (FEA). Afterward, the model was imported into Abaqus software to evaluate the effect of forces on the spine model. The study was done by assuming two cases for the spine, one-piece (without a nucleus) and two-piece (with a nucleus) intervertebral disc.
Results: After studying the results of this simulation, it concluded that after applying gravity force to these two cases, the percentage of Cobb angle’s reduction was about 0.05 for a two-piece disc and about -0.18 for the one-piece disc. Therefore, the two-piece disc assumption was better for analyzing this parameter. The results of maximum displacement and von misses stress show that the two-piece disc is accurate.
Conclusion: In order to investigate which analysis is appropriate to be selected, choosing a twopiece intervertebral disc model is superlative. Whether our goal is only to examine the stress which is present in the patient model, choosing a one-piece disc is a more optimal duo to take much less time.
Xu M, Yang J, Lieberman I, Haddas RJCib, medicine. Finite element method-based study for effect of adult degenerative scoliosis on the spinal vibration characteristics. 2017;84:53-8.
Stokes IAJS. ШЙЁ Three-Dimensional Terminology of Spinal Deformity. 1994;19(2):236-48.
Ghista D, Viviani G, Subbaraj K, Lozada P, Srinivasan T, Barnes GJJob. Biomechanical basis of optimal scoliosis surgical correction. 1988;21(2):77-88.
Bogduk N. Clinical anatomy of the lumbar spine and sacrum: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2005.
Pea R, Dansereau J, Caouette C, Cobetto N, Aubin C-É. Computer-assisted design and finite element simulation of braces for the treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis using a coronal plane radiograph and surface topography. Clinical Biomechanics. 2018;54:86-91.
Stokes IJS. Three-dimensional terminology of spinal deformity. A report presented to the research society working group on 3-D terminology of spinal deformity. 1994;19:236-48.
Huo X, Tan JQ, Qian J, Cheng L, Jing JH, Shao K, et al. An integrative framework for 3D cobb angle measurement on CT images. 2017;82:111-8.
Nie W-Z, Ye M, Liu Z-D, Wang C-TJJobe. The patient-specific brace design and biomechanical analysis of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. 2009;131(4):041007.
Agarwal A, Zakeri A, Agarwal AK, Jayaswal A, Goel VK. Distraction magnitude and frequency affects the outcome in juvenile idiopathic patients with growth rods: finite element study using a representative scoliotic spine model. The Spine Journal. 2015;15(8):1848-55.
Bertrand S, Laporte S, Parent S, Skalli W, Mitton DJI. Three-dimensional reconstruction of the rib cage from biplanar radiography. 2008;29(4):278-86.
Assi KC, Labelle H, Cheriet FJCib, medicine. Statistical model based 3D shape prediction of postoperative trunks for non-invasive scoliosis surgery planning. 2014;48:85-93.
Kim H-J, Chun H-J, Kang K-T, Lee H-M, Kim H-S, Moon E-S, et al. A validated finite element analysis of nerve root stress in degenerative lumbar scoliosis. 2009;47(6):599-605.
Perie D, Aubin C, Lacroix M, Lafon Y, Labelle HJM, Engineering B, et al. Biomechanical modelling of orthotic treatment of the scoliotic spine including a detailed representation of the brace-torso interface. 2004;42(3):339-44.
Perie D, De Gauzy JS, Hobatho MJM, Engineering B, Computing. Biomechanical evaluation of Cheneau-Toulouse-Munster brace in the treatment of scoliosis using optimisation approach and finite element method. 2002;40(3):296-301.
Dupuis S, Fortin C, Caouette C, Leclair I, Aubin C-ÉJBMD. Global postural re-education in pediatric idiopathic scoliosis: a biomechanical modeling and analysis of curve reduction during active and assisted self-correction. 2018;19(1):200.
Luo M, Jiang H, Wang W, Li N, Shen M, Li P, et al. Influence of screw density on thoracic kyphosis restoration in hypokyphotic adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. 2017;18(1):526.
Liu X, Ma J, Park P, Huang X, Xie N, Ye XJBMD. Biomechanical comparison of multilevel lateral interbody fusion with and without supplementary instrumentation: a three-dimensional finite element study. 2017;18(1):63.
Betz RR, Kim J, D’andrea LP, Mulcahey M, Balsara RK, Clements DHJS. An innovative technique of vertebral body stapling for the treatment of patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a feasibility, safety, and utility study. 2003;28(20S):S255-S65.
Kadoury S, Cheriet F, Beauséjour M, Stokes IA, Parent S, Labelle HJESJ. A three-dimensional retrospective analysis of the evolution of spinal instrumentation for the correction of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. 2009;18(1):23-37.
Ma H-H, Tai C-L, Chen L-H, Niu C-C, Chen W-J, Lai P-LJBeo. Application of two-parameter scoliometer values for predicting scoliotic Cobb angle. 2017;16(1):136.
Zhu X, He X, Wang P, He Q, Gao D, Cheng J, et al. A method of localization and segmentation of intervertebral discs in spine MRI based on Gabor filter bank. 2016;15(1):32.
Oellrich A, Koehler S, Washington N, Mungall C, Lewis S, Haendel M, et al. The influence of disease categories on gene candidate predictions from model organism phenotypes. 2014;5(1):S4.
Vrtovec T, Pernuš F, Likar BJEsj. A review of methods for quantitative evaluation of spinal curvature. 2009;18(5):593-607.
Lalonde N, Villemure I, Pannetier R, Parent S, Aubin C-ÉJCb. Biomechanical modeling of the lateral decubitus posture during corrective scoliosis surgery. 2010;25(6):510-6.
Little JP, Izatt MT, Labrom RD, Askin GN, Adam CJJS. An FE investigation simulating intra-operative corrective forces applied to correct scoliosis deformity. 2013;8(1):9.
Little JP, Adam CJIjfnmibe. Patient‐specific computational biomechanics for simulating adolescent scoliosis surgery: Predicted vs clinical correction for a preliminary series of six patients. 2011;27(3):347-56.
Salmingo RA, Tadano S, Abe Y, Ito MJTSJ. Influence of implant rod curvature on sagittal correction of scoliosis deformity. 2014;14(8):1432-9.
Salmingo RA, Tadano S, Fujisaki K, Abe Y, Ito MJCb. Relationship of forces acting on implant rods and degree of scoliosis correction. 2013;28(2):122-8.
Wang W, Baran GR, Betz RR, Samdani AF, Pahys JM, Cahill PJJSD. The use of finite element models to assist understanding and treatment for scoliosis: a review paper. 2014;2(1):10-27.
Abe Y, Ito M, Abumi K, Sudo H, Salmingo R, Tadano SJS. Scoliosis corrective force estimation from the implanted rod deformation using 3D-FEM analysis. 2015;10(2):S2.
Shahab M, Seyfi B, Fatouraee NJIJoBE. A novel Approach for Automatic Calculation of Required Parameters in Spine Surgery using CT Images Row Data. 2015;9:1-15.
Gholampour S, Soleimani N, Karizi FZ, Zalii AR, Masoudian N, Seddighi ASJICNJ. Biomechanical Assessment of Cervical Spine with Artificial Disc during Axial Rotation, Flexion and Extension. 2016;3(2):113-9.
Gholampour S, Soleimani N, Zalii AR, Seddighi AJICNJ. Numerical simulation of the cervical spine in a normal subject and a patient with intervertebral cage under various loadings and in various positions. 2016;3(2):92-8.
Khademi M, Mohammadi Y, Gholampour S, Fatouraee NJICNJ. The Nucleus Pulpous of Intervertebral Disc Effect on Finite Element Modeling of Spine. 2016;3(3):150-7.
Laitman JT. A microscope on vertebrate form and function: The power of finite element analysis. 2005;283A(2):251-2.
Shirazi-Adl AJJoB. On the fibre composite material models of disc annulus—comparison of predicted stresses. 1989;22(4):357-65.
Bahramshahi NJT, Dissertations P. Finite Element Analysis of middle cervical spine. 2007;966.
Zhang Y, Bajaj CJCmiam, engineering. Adaptive and quality quadrilateral/hexahedral meshing from volumetric data. 2006;195(9-12):942-60.
Labelle DG-ÉAD. Optimization method for 3D bracing correction of scoliosis using a finite element model
European Spine Journal. 2000;9(3):185–90.
Ross CF. Finite element analysis in vertebrate biomechanics. 2005;283A(2):253-8.
Strait DS, Wang Q, Dechow PC, Ross CF, Richmond BG, Spencer MA, et al. Modeling elastic properties in finite-element analysis: How much precision is needed to produce an accurate model? 2005;283A(2):275-87.
Gohlke MJAE. Practical aspects of finite element simulation. 2015.
Yoshihara H. Rods in spinal surgery: a review of the literature. The Spine Journal. 2013;13(10):1350-8.
Cobetto N, Parent S, Aubin C-E. 3D correction over 2years with anterior vertebral body growth modulation: A finite element analysis of screw positioning, cable tensioning and postoperative functional activities. Clinical Biomechanics. 2018;51:26-33.
Liu CL, Kao HC, Wang ST, Lo WH, Cheng CK. Biomechanical evaluation of a central rod system in the treatment of scoliosis. Clinical Biomechanics. 1998;13(7):548-59.