STUDY DESIGN: A biomechanical in vitro subsidence test of different cervical interbody fusion devices was performed using a new testing protocol that simulates physiologic conditions. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effect of simulated postoperative neck movements on the subsidence of the new WING cervical interbody fusion cage in comparison with two other cages and bone cement. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Cervical interbody fusion cages sometimes cause complications because of subsidence into the adjacent vertebrae with collapse of the intervertebral space. Complications such as cage dislocation or nonunion with instability also have been reported. To prevent such complications, the new WING cervical interbody fusion cage (Medinorm AG, Quierschied, Germany) has been developed. Its area of contact with the adjacent vertebrae is supposed to be large enough to resist excessive subsidence and small enough to prevent stress protection of the tissue growing in the cage. METHODS: In this study, 24 human cervical spine specimens were tested after stabilization with either a WING, BAK/C, AcroMed I/F cage or bone cement. Then, in a new testing protocol, 700 pure-moment loading cycles (+/-2 Nm) were applied in randomized directions (lateral bending, flexion-extension, and axial rotation alone or in combination with each other) to simulate the patient's neck movements during the first few postoperative days. Measurements of the subsidence depth (total height loss) in combination with flexibility tests (+/-2.5 Nm) were performed before cyclic loading and after 50, 100, 200, 300, 500, and 700 loading cycles. RESULTS: Cyclic loading caused subsidence in all four device groups, most distinct with BAK/C-cages (1.63 mm after 700 loading cycles) followed by the new WING (0.90 mm) and the AcroMed (0.82 mm) cages. No statistically significant difference could be found among the three cage designs. However, all three cage types showed a significantly higher subsidence depth than bone cement (0.48 mm;P = 0.023 between each of the three cage-types and bone cement). A moderate correlation between bone mineral density and subsidence depth could be found only in the BAK/C group (r2 = 0.495). A large subsidence depth after 700 loading cycles was associated with a large flexibility increase in the WING (r2 = 0.786) and AcroMed groups (r2 = 0.21), but with a small flexibility increase in the BAK/C group (r2 = 0.58). CONCLUSIONS: Postoperative neck movements caused subsidence in all cervical interbody implant types. The new WING cage and the AcroMed cage seemed to have a better resistance against subsidence than the BAK/C cage. However, all three cage types had a significantly higher subsidence tendency than bone cement.
STUDY DESIGN: A biomechanical in vitro subsidence test of different cervical interbody fusion devices was performed using a new testing protocol that simulates physiologic conditions. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effect of simulated postoperative neck movements on the subsidence of the new WING cervical interbody fusion cage in comparison with two other cages and bone cement. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Cervical interbody fusion cages sometimes cause complications because of subsidence into the adjacent vertebrae with collapse of the intervertebral space. Complications such as cage dislocation or nonunion with instability also have been reported. To prevent such complications, the new WING cervical interbody fusion cage (Medinorm AG, Quierschied, Germany) has been developed. Its area of contact with the adjacent vertebrae is supposed to be large enough to resist excessive subsidence and small enough to prevent stress protection of the tissue growing in the cage. METHODS: In this study, 24 human cervical spine specimens were tested after stabilization with either a WING, BAK/C, AcroMed I/F cage or bone cement. Then, in a new testing protocol, 700 pure-moment loading cycles (+/-2 Nm) were applied in randomized directions (lateral bending, flexion-extension, and axial rotation alone or in combination with each other) to simulate the patient's neck movements during the first few postoperative days. Measurements of the subsidence depth (total height loss) in combination with flexibility tests (+/-2.5 Nm) were performed before cyclic loading and after 50, 100, 200, 300, 500, and 700 loading cycles. RESULTS: Cyclic loading caused subsidence in all four device groups, most distinct with BAK/C-cages (1.63 mm after 700 loading cycles) followed by the new WING (0.90 mm) and the AcroMed (0.82 mm) cages. No statistically significant difference could be found among the three cage designs. However, all three cage types showed a significantly higher subsidence depth than bone cement (0.48 mm;P = 0.023 between each of the three cage-types and bone cement). A moderate correlation between bone mineral density and subsidence depth could be found only in the BAK/C group (r2 = 0.495). A large subsidence depth after 700 loading cycles was associated with a large flexibility increase in the WING (r2 = 0.786) and AcroMed groups (r2 = 0.21), but with a small flexibility increase in the BAK/C group (r2 = 0.58). CONCLUSIONS: Postoperative neck movements caused subsidence in all cervical interbody implant types. The new WING cage and the AcroMed cage seemed to have a better resistance against subsidence than the BAK/C cage. However, all three cage types had a significantly higher subsidence tendency than bone cement.
Authors: Benjamin D Elder; Sheng-Fu Lo; Thomas A Kosztowski; C Rory Goodwin; Ioan A Lina; John E Locke; Timothy F Witham Journal: Neurosurg Rev Date: 2015-07-28 Impact factor: 3.042