Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Orthopaedic Proceedings Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from Orthopaedic Proceedings

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Visit Orthopaedic Proceedings at:

Loading...

Loading...

Full Access

General Orthopaedics

OPTIMISATION OF THE VEPTR DESIGN TO AVOID COMPLICATIONS

The International Society for Technology in Arthroplasty (ISTA), 27th Annual Congress. PART 3.



Abstract

Introduction

Originally, the vertical expandable titanium rib (VEPTR™) was developed to treat children with Thoracic insufficiency syndrome secondary to fused ribs and congenital scoliosis. Over the years its usage has widen and is currently being used to treat all etiology of early onset scoliosis (EOS). A major draw back remains the size of the titanium VEPTR™ implant. In keeping with the new trend of chrome-cobalt alloy (CoCr). spinal implants, we set out to explore if redesigning the VEPTR™ was mechanically sound. The aim of this study was twofold. Firstly, we investigate the mechanical properties of a VEPTR™ made with CoCr alloy compared to that of titanium alloy. Secondly we investigated how much we could down size the VEPTR™.

Materials & Methods

Finite element analyses were performed on 3 different VEPTR™ designs (rod diameter of 6mm, 5mm and 4mm) subjected to a compressive load of 500N (equivalent to a 50Kg child). For each configuration, two materials, titanium alloy and chrome-cobalt alloy, were used. Maximum Von Mises stress distribution (VMSD), plastic strain (PS) and total displacement (TD) of the VEPTR™ were measured as indicators of mechanical properties of the implant.

Results

Results for the maximum Von Mises stress distribution (VMSD), plastic strain and total displacement (TD) can be seen on the table 1.

Discussion

Results confirm that yield strength of titanium material is greater than that of Co-Cr, while Plastic strain (PS) is greater for a CoCr VEPTR™ than for titanium VEPTR™. As expected a 6 mm CoCr VEPTR resist displacement almost twice as a 6 mm titanium VEPTR. Little difference is noted in plastic strain and VonMises stress at 6mm. Down sizing the implant to 5 mm in titanium or CoCr may runs the risk of implant failure as both exceeds their failure point and they both deform 0.29% and 6.6% respectively, placing the 5mm CoCr at higher risk of failure. Our results suggest that the VEPTR™ design could be reduced to 5mm however requires a new design to minimize the risk of failure. 4mm rods will not withstand a 50kg load.


Email: