Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Biomechanics of prophylactic tethering for proximal junctional kyphosis: effects of cyclic loading on tether strength and failure properties

  • Biomechanics
  • Published:
Spine Deformity Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Study design

Biomechanical evaluation of woven polyester tethers.

Objectives

To quantify changes in tether elongation, stiffness, and failure characteristics after cyclic loading.

Summary of background data

Ligamentous augmentation is gaining interest as a technique to prevent proximal junctional kyphosis (PJK) in adult spinal fusions. There are a lack of data regarding the effects of cyclic loading on polyester tether mechanical properties. Tether stretch may lead to loss of stabilization and increased risk of tether failure. Biomechanical data are needed to determine the effects of cyclic loading on tether integrity.

Methods

Testing was done in two materials: (1) a synthetic cortical bone composite to determine baseline mechanical properties, and (2) nine cadaveric L1 spinous processes. 5 mm woven polyester tethers were looped through 2.5 mm holes drilled in each material. First, five tethers were tested directly to failure in the synthetic bone to establish baseline failure properties. Next, tethers were tested at one of the three cyclic load ranges [5%, 25%, and 50% (n = 5 each) of baseline failure] for 1000 cycles and then loaded to failure. Cadaveric tests were done at the 25% range and compared to synthetic bone tests at the same range. Cadaveric failure tests were classified as either tether failure or spinous process bone failure.

Results

Greater cyclic loading range had a significant effect on tether loop elongation, increased stiffness, and decreased ultimate tensile force. Among the cadaveric failure tests, 56% resulted in tether failure and the remaining 44% resulted in bone failure.

Conclusions

Polyester tethers stretch significantly when loaded to physiological ranges. Anticipation of tether stretch may be an important consideration for a tethering strategy to prevent PJK. Improved understanding of tether material properties can provide guidance for the evaluation of clinical outcomes associated with techniques to reduce the risk of PJK caused by ligamentous laxity.

Level of evidence

Biomechanical study.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Lawrence BD et al (2012) Predicting the risk of adjacent segment pathology after lumbar fusion: a systematic review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 37(22 Suppl):S123–S132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Kim HJ et al (2012) Proximal junctional kyphosis as a distinct form of adjacent segment pathology after spinal deformity surgery: a systematic review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 37(22 Suppl):S144–S164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Ailon T et al (2015) Degenerative spinal deformity. Neurosurgery 77(Suppl 4):S75–S91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Lau D et al (2014) Proximal junctional kyphosis and failure after spinal deformity surgery: a systematic review of the literature as a background to classification development. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 39(25):2093–2102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Nguyen NL, Kong CY, Hart RA (2016) Proximal junctional kyphosis and failure-diagnosis, prevention, and treatment. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 9(3):299–308

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Glattes RC et al (2005) Proximal junctional kyphosis in adult spinal deformity following long instrumented posterior spinal fusion: incidence, outcomes, and risk factor analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30(14):1643–1649

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Hart R et al (2013) Identification of decision criteria for revision surgery among patients with proximal junctional failure after surgical treatment of spinal deformity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 38(19):E1223–E1227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Kim HJ, Iyer S (2016) Proximal junctional kyphosis. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 24:318–326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Park SJ et al (2017) Different risk factors of proximal junctional kyphosis and proximal junctional failure following long instrumented fusion to the sacrum for adult spinal deformity: survivorship analysis of 160 patients. Neurosurgery 80(2):279–286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Hostin R et al (2013) Incidence, mode, and location of acute proximal junctional failures after surgical treatment of adult spinal deformity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 38(12):1008–1015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Yagi M et al (2018) Low bone-mineral density is a significant risk for proximal junctional failure after surgical correction of adult spinal deformity: a propensity score-matched analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 43(7):485–491

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Luo M et al (2017) Upper thoracic versus lower thoracic as site of upper-instrumented vertebrae for long fusion surgery in adult spinal deformity: a meta-analysis of proximal junctional kyphosis. World Neurosurg 102:200–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Lafage R et al (2017) Orientation of the upper-most instrumented segment influences proximal junctional disease following adult spinal deformity surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 42:1570–1577

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Yagi M, Akilah KB, Boachie-Adjei O (2011) Incidence, risk factors and classification of proximal junctional kyphosis: surgical outcomes review of adult idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 36(1):E60–E68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Smith JS et al (2019) Treatment of adult thoracolumbar spinal deformity: past, present, and future. J Neurosurg Spine 30(5):551–567

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Kim YC et al (2016) Results of revision surgery for proximal junctional kyphosis following posterior segmental instrumentation: minimum 2-year postrevision follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 41(24):E1444–e1452

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Cahill PJ et al (2012) The use of a transition rod may prevent proximal junctional kyphosis in the thoracic spine after scoliosis surgery: a finite element analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 37(12):E687–E695

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Diebo BG et al (2015) Sagittal deformities of the spine: factors influencing the outcomes and complications. Eur Spine J 24(Suppl 1):3–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Iyer S et al (2018) Sagittal spinal alignment in adult spinal deformity: an overview of current concepts and a critical analysis review. JBJS Rev 6:e2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Kim HJ et al (2014) Patients with proximal junctional kyphosis requiring revision surgery have higher postoperative lumbar lordosis and larger sagittal balance corrections. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 39(9):E576–E580

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Lafage R et al (2017) Age-adjusted alignment goals have the potential to reduce PJK. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 42:1275–1282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Lafage R et al (2016) Defining spino-pelvic alignment thresholds: should operative goals in adult spinal deformity surgery account for age? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 41(1):62–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Kebaish KM et al (2013) Use of vertebroplasty to prevent proximal junctional fractures in adult deformity surgery: a biomechanical cadaveric study. Spine J 13(12):1897–1903

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Hart RA et al (2008) Proximal junctional acute collapse cranial to multi-level lumbar fusion: a cost analysis of prophylactic vertebral augmentation. Spine J 8(6):875–881

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Bess S et al (2016) The effect of posterior polyester tethers on the biomechanics of proximal junctional kyphosis: a finite element analysis. J Neurosurg Spine 26:125–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Mar DE, Burton DC, McIff TE (2019) Biomechanics of prophylactic tethering for proximal junctional kyphosis: comparison of posterior tether looping techniques. Spine Deform 7(2):197–202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Mar DE et al (2019) Biomechanics of prophylactic tethering for proximal junctional kyphosis: characterization of spinous process tether pretensioning and pull-out force. Spine Deform 7(2):191–196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Zaghloul KM et al (2016) Preventing proximal adjacent level kyphosis with strap stabilization. Orthopedics 39:e794–e799

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Safaee MM et al (2018) Ligament augmentation for prevention of proximal junctional kyphosis and proximal junctional failure in adult spinal deformity. J Neurosurg Spine 28(5):512–519

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Smith JS et al (2017) Recent and emerging advances in spinal deformity. Neurosurgery 80(3s):S70–s85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Buell TJ et al (2018) A novel junctional tether weave technique for adult spinal deformity: 2-dimensional operative video. Oper Neurosurg (Hagerstown) 16:E45–E46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Buell TJ et al (2019) Optimal tether configurations and preload tensioning to prevent proximal junctional kyphosis: a finite element analysis. J Neurosurg Spine 30:551–728

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Buell TJ et al (2018) A pilot study on posterior polyethylene tethers to prevent proximal junctional kyphosis after multilevel spinal instrumentation for adult spinal deformity. Oper Neurosurg (Hagerstown) 16:256–266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Daniels AH et al (2018) Peak timing for complications after adult spinal deformity surgery. World Neurosurg 115:e509–e515

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Annis P et al (2014) Predictive factors for acute proximal junctional failure after adult deformity surgery with upper instrumented vertebrae in the thoracolumbar spine. Evid Based Spine Care J 5(2):160–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

Marc A. and Elinor J. Asher Orthopedic Research Endowment.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Texas Back Institute, Plano, TX, USA

    Damon E. Mar

  2. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Kansas Medical Center, 3901 Rainbow Boulevard, Mail Stop 3031, Kansas City, KS, 66160, USA

    Steven J. Clary, Brant Ansley, Joshua T. Bunch, Douglas C. Burton & Terence E. McIff

Authors
  1. Damon E. Mar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Steven J. Clary
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Brant Ansley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Joshua T. Bunch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Douglas C. Burton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Terence E. McIff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

DEM: lead investigator, study design, data collection, manuscript drafting, and review. Steven J. Clary, BS: study design, data collection, manuscript drafting, and review. BA: data collection, study design, and manuscript review. JTB: clinical direction, study design, data collection, manuscript drafting, and review. DCB: primary clinical direction, study design, and manuscript review. TEM: principle investigator, study design, and manuscript review.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Douglas C. Burton.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mar, D.E., Clary, S.J., Ansley, B. et al. Biomechanics of prophylactic tethering for proximal junctional kyphosis: effects of cyclic loading on tether strength and failure properties. Spine Deform 8, 863–870 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43390-020-00111-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43390-020-00111-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation