TY - JOUR
T1 - Defining the segmental tension generated in a vertebral body tethering system for scoliosis
AU - Upasani, Vidyadhar V.
AU - Farnsworth, Christine L.
AU - Caffrey, Jason P.
AU - Olmert, Tony
AU - Brink, Ian
AU - Cain, Phoebe
AU - Mannen, Erin
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2024 Orthopaedic Research Society.
PY - 2025/2
Y1 - 2025/2
N2 - Vertebral body tethering (VBT) uses a flexible tether affixed across the curve convexity with tension applied at each segment to treat scoliosis. Intraoperative tether tension may be achieved directly with a counter-tensioner or with an extension spring tube. The purpose of this study was to quantify the force generated with and without the extension spring tube using current FDA-approved VBT instrumentation, to understand the variation between surgeons using the same instrumentation, and to define the force range that is generated intra-operatively. Using a benchtop mechanical testing setup to simulate a spinal segment, we affixed the tether and applied tension using a tensioner and counter-tensioner alone (method T1) or by adding an extension spring tube (method T2). Eight orthopedic surgeons used T1 and T2 at six tensioner settings, and one surgeon completed three trials. A two-way ANOVA with a Tukey's HSD post hoc test (p < 0.05) compared the tensioner methods and testing levels. Inter- and intra-rater reliabilities were calculated using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Methods T1 and T2 exhibited linear tension-setting relationships, with high determination coefficients (R2 > 0.93). T2 consistently produced higher forces (increase of 62.1 N/setting), compared to T1 (increase of 50.6 N/setting, p < 0.05). Inter-rater reliability exhibited excellent agreement (ICC = 0.951 and 0.943 for T1 and T2, respectively), as did intra-rater reliability (ICC = 0.971).
AB - Vertebral body tethering (VBT) uses a flexible tether affixed across the curve convexity with tension applied at each segment to treat scoliosis. Intraoperative tether tension may be achieved directly with a counter-tensioner or with an extension spring tube. The purpose of this study was to quantify the force generated with and without the extension spring tube using current FDA-approved VBT instrumentation, to understand the variation between surgeons using the same instrumentation, and to define the force range that is generated intra-operatively. Using a benchtop mechanical testing setup to simulate a spinal segment, we affixed the tether and applied tension using a tensioner and counter-tensioner alone (method T1) or by adding an extension spring tube (method T2). Eight orthopedic surgeons used T1 and T2 at six tensioner settings, and one surgeon completed three trials. A two-way ANOVA with a Tukey's HSD post hoc test (p < 0.05) compared the tensioner methods and testing levels. Inter- and intra-rater reliabilities were calculated using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Methods T1 and T2 exhibited linear tension-setting relationships, with high determination coefficients (R2 > 0.93). T2 consistently produced higher forces (increase of 62.1 N/setting), compared to T1 (increase of 50.6 N/setting, p < 0.05). Inter-rater reliability exhibited excellent agreement (ICC = 0.951 and 0.943 for T1 and T2, respectively), as did intra-rater reliability (ICC = 0.971).
KW - growth modulation
KW - nonfusion scoliosis deformity correction
KW - scoliosis deformity
KW - spine mechanics
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85205870021&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1002/jor.25995
DO - 10.1002/jor.25995
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85205870021
SN - 0736-0266
VL - 43
SP - 441
EP - 445
JO - Journal of Orthopaedic Research
JF - Journal of Orthopaedic Research
IS - 2
ER -