The growing spine: how spinal deformities influence normal spine and thoracic cage growth

Diméglio, Alain; Canavese, Federico

doi:10.1007/s00586-011-1983-3

Cited by 210 publications

(137 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

125

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This process displays three stages of growth throughout childhood and adolescence. There is a rapid increase in height from birth to 5 years of age, a period of quiescence between 5 and 10 years, and finally a pubertal growth spurt between ∼10.5 and 13.5 years of age in girls and 12.5 and 15.5 years in boys (Hefti and McMaster, 1983; Diméglio and Canavese, 2012). The formation of vertebral end plates (subchondral bone plates, not to be confused with the annular rings) at both the superior and inferior surfaces of the vertebral body marks the end of the growth period between 18 and 25 years of age (Bogduk, 2005).…”

Section: The Process Of Vertebral Growthmentioning

confidence: 99%

The use of non‐adult vertebral dimensions as indicators of growth disruption and non‐specific health stress in skeletal populations

Newman

Gowland²

2015

American J Phys Anthropol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveTraditional methods of detecting growth disruption have focused on deficiencies in the diaphyseal length of the long bones. This study proposes the implementation of vertebral measurements (body height and transverse diameter of the neural canal) from non‐adults (0–17 years) as a new methodology for the identification of growth disruption.MethodsMeasurements of vertebral body height and transverse diameter were taken from 96 non‐adult skeletons and 40 adult skeletons from two post‐medieval sites in England (Bow Baptist, London and Coronation Street, South Shields). Non‐adult measurements were plotted against dental age to construct vertebral growth profiles through which inter‐population comparisons could be made.ResultsResults demonstrated that both sites experienced some growth retardation in infancy, evident as deficiencies in transverse diameter. However, analysis of vertebral body height revealed different chronologies of growth disruption between the sites, with a later age of attainment of skeletal maturity recorded in the Bow Baptist sample.DiscussionThese vertebral dimensions undergo cessation of growth at different ages, with transverse diameter being “locked‐in” by ∼1–2 years of age, while vertebral body height may continue to grow into early adulthood. These measurements can therefore provide complementary information regarding the timing of growth disruption within archaeological populations. Non‐adult vertebral measurements can increase our osteobiographical understanding of the timings of episodes of health stress, and allow for the analysis of growth when other skeletal elements are fragmentary. Am J Phys Anthropol 158:155–164, 2015. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

show abstract

Section: The Process Of Vertebral Growthmentioning

confidence: 99%

The use of non‐adult vertebral dimensions as indicators of growth disruption and non‐specific health stress in skeletal populations

Newman

Gowland²

2015

American J Phys Anthropol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For this reason, standing height does not always exactly correlate with the loss of trunk height in children with severe spinal deformities. It is therefore important to monitor changes in sitting height rather than in standing height [1][2][3][4]. Sitting height correlates strictly with trunk height, and in children with severe spinal deformities, the loss of sitting height is related to the severity of the deformity.…”

Section: Biometric Measurements To Monitor Growthmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A gain in sitting height of 12-13 cm corresponds to puberty. When the sitting height is approximately 84 cm, 80 % of girls have menarche [1][2][3][4]. Arm span measurement is an indirect evaluation of standing height.…”

Section: Biometric Measurements To Monitor Growthmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…During this phase, the average remaining growth on the standing height is about 6 cm for boys and 5.5 cm for girls, and the average remaining growth on the sitting height is about 4.1 for boys and 3.7 cm for girls [1][2][3][4][5][6]10].…”

Section: The Pubertal Cyclementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Each year of puberty corresponds to a weight increase of about 5 kg [3]. This information should be kept in mind when brace treatment is being considered.…”

Section: The Pubertal Cyclementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Progression or not progression? How to deal with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis during puberty

Diméglio

Canavese

2013

Journal of Children's Orthopaedics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Finite element simulation of growth modulation during brace treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis

Guy

Aubin

2023

Journal Orthopaedic Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) is a spine deformity whose progression during growth is affected by asymmetrical loads acting on the spine. The conservative brace treatment aims to limit the deformity's progression until the end of skeletal growth. This study's objective was to develop a patient‐specific finite element model (FEM) simulating immediate in‐brace (IB) correction and subsequent growth modulation over 2 years of treatment. Thirty‐five retrospective AIS cases with documented correction over 2 years were analyzed. For each case, a patient‐specific FEM was built and IB correction was simulated. Vertebral growth and its modulation were modeled using simulated pressures on epiphyseal vertebral growth plates, including a compliance factor representing the recorded brace wear. The simulated Cobb angles, thoracic kyphosis, lumbar lordosis, and apical vertebral rotation were compared with the actual measurements immediately IB and out‐of‐brace (OOB) at the 2‐year follow‐up. Treatment outcomes according to simulated compliance scenarios of no brace‐wear versus full brace‐wear were also computed. The average immediate IB difference between the simulated and actual Cobb angle was 4.9° (main thoracic [MT]) and 3.7° (thoraco‐lumbar/lumbar [TL/L]). Two‐year OOB, it was 5.6° (MT) and 5.4° (TL/L). The no brace‐wear and full brace‐wear compliance scenarios resulted respectively in 15/35 (43%) and 31/35 (89%) simulated spine deformities progressing by <5° over 2 years of treatment. Clinical significance: the FEM's ability to simulate the final correction with an accuracy on the order of the radiological measurements’ interoperator reproducibility, combined with its sensitivity to brace‐wear compliance, provides confidence in the model's predictions for a comparative context of use like improving a brace's design before its application.

show abstract

The growing spine: how spinal deformities influence normal spine and thoracic cage growth

Cited by 210 publications

References 30 publications

The use of non‐adult vertebral dimensions as indicators of growth disruption and non‐specific health stress in skeletal populations

The use of non‐adult vertebral dimensions as indicators of growth disruption and non‐specific health stress in skeletal populations

Progression or not progression? How to deal with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis during puberty

Finite element simulation of growth modulation during brace treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About