Skip Navigation LinksHome > April/May 2014 - Volume 34 - Issue 3 > A Classification of Growth Friendly Spine Implants
Journal of Pediatric Orthopaedics:
doi: 10.1097/BPO.0000000000000073

A Classification of Growth Friendly Spine Implants

Skaggs, David L. MD*; Akbarnia, Behrooz A. MD; Flynn, John M. MD; Myung, Karen S. MD, PhD*; Sponseller, Paul D. MD§; Vitale, Michael G. MD; Approved by the Chest Wall and Spine Deformity Study Group, the Growing Spine Study Group, Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America and the Scoliosis Research Society Growing Spine Study Committee

Collapse Box


Background: Various types of spinal implants have been used with the objective of minimizing spinal deformities while maximizing the spine and thoracic growth in a growing child with a spinal deformity.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to describe a classification system of growth friendly spinal implants to allow researchers and clinicians to have a common language and facilitate comparative studies. Growth friendly spinal implant systems fall into 3 categories based upon the forces of correction the implants exert on the spine, which are as follows: Distraction-based systems correct spinal deformities by mechanically applying a distractive force across a deformed segment with anchors at the top and bottom of the implants, which commonly attach to the spine, rib, and/or the pelvis. The present examples of distraction-based implants are spine-based or rib-based growing rods, vertical expandable titanium rib prosthesis, and remotely expandable devices. Compression-based systems correct spinal deformities with a compressive force applied to the convexity of the curve causing convex growth inhibition. This compressive force may be generated both mechanically at the time of implantation, as well as over time resulting from longitudinal growth of vertebral endplates hindered by the spinal implants. Examples of compression-based systems are vertebral staples and tethers. Guided growth systems correct spinal deformity by anchoring multiple vertebrae (usually including the apical vertebrae) to rods with mechanical forces including translation at the time of the initial implant. The majority of the anchors are not rigidly attached to the rods, thus permitting longitudinal growth over time as the anchors slide over the rods. Examples of guided growth systems include the Luque trolley and Shilla.

Conclusions: Each system has its benefits and shortcomings. Knowledge of the fundamental principles upon which these systems are based may aid the clinician to choose an appropriate treatment for patients. Having a common language for these systems may aid in comparative research. Vertical expandable titanium rib prosthesis is used with humanitarian exemption. The other devices mentioned in this manuscript are not approved for growing constructs by the Food and Drug Administration and are used off-label.

© 2014 by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

The Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America (POSNA)
is a group of healthcare professionals, primarily pediatric orthopaedic surgeons, dedicated to advancing musculoskeletal care of children and adolescents. JPO is our official member journal. 
Like us on facebook and become a member today!


Article Tools


Article Level Metrics

Search for Similar Articles
You may search for similar articles that contain these same keywords or you may modify the keyword list to augment your search.