Literature DB >> 11317111

Mapping the structural properties of the lumbosacral vertebral endplates.

J P Grant1, T R Oxland, M F Dvorak.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: A biomechanical investigation using indentation tests in a human cadaveric model to seek variation in the structural properties across the lower lumbar and sacral endplates.
OBJECTIVES: To determine 1) if there are regional differences in endplate strength and 2) whether any differences identified are affected by spinal level (lumbar spine vs. sacrum) or endplate (superior vs. inferior). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: It has been postulated that some regions of the vertebral body may be stronger than others. Conclusive data, either supporting or disproving this theory, would be valuable for both spine surgeons and implant designers because one mode of failure of interbody implants is subsidence into one or both adjacent vertebrae.
METHODS: Indentation tests were performed at 27 standardized test sites in 62 bony endplates of intact human vertebrae (L3-S1) using a 3-mm-diameter, hemispherical indenter with a test rate of 0.2 mm/sec to a depth of 3 mm. The failure load and stiffness at each test site were determined using the load-displacement curves. Three-way analyses of variance were used to analyze the resulting data.
RESULTS: Both the failure load and stiffness varied significantly across the endplate surfaces (P < 0.0001), with posterolateral regions being stronger and stiffer than the central regions. Characteristic distributions were identified in the lumbar superior, lumbar inferior, and sacral endplates. The failure load distributions were found to differ in 1) the superior lumbar and sacral endplates (P = 0.0077), 2) the inferior lumbar and sacral endplates (P = 0.0014), and 3) the superior and inferior lumbar endplates (P < 0.0001). The sacral and inferior lumbar endplates were both found to be stronger than the superior lumbar endplates (sacrum, P = 0.054; inferior, P = 0.008) but were not themselves significantly different (P = 0.89).
CONCLUSIONS: Highly significant regional strength and stiffness variations were identified in the lumbar and sacral endplates. The center of the bone, where implants are currently placed, is the weakest part of the lumbar endplates and is not the strongest region of the sacral endplate.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11317111     DOI: 10.1097/00007632-200104150-00012

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)        ISSN: 0362-2436            Impact factor:   3.468


  87 in total

1.  The importance of the endplate for interbody cages in the lumbar spine.

Authors:  Anne Polikeit; Stephen J Ferguson; Lutz P Nolte; Tracy E Orr
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2003-05-29       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Variation of endplate thickness in the cervical spine.

Authors:  T Pitzen; B Schmitz; T Georg; D Barbier; T Beuter; W I Steudel; W Reith
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2004-01-17       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  Factors influencing stresses in the lumbar spine after the insertion of intervertebral cages: finite element analysis.

Authors:  Anne Polikeit; Stephen J Ferguson; Lutz P Nolte; Tracy E Orr
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2002-12-19       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  Contribution of Round vs. Rectangular Expandable Cage Endcaps to Spinal Stability in a Cadaveric Corpectomy Model.

Authors:  Gregory M Mundis; Robert K Eastlack; Payam Moazzaz; Alexander W L Turner; G Bryan Cornwall
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2015-10-22

5.  Lateral lumbar interbody fusion for the correction of spondylolisthesis and adult degenerative scoliosis in high-risk patients: early radiographic results and complications.

Authors:  Brad Waddell; David Briski; Rabah Qadir; Gustavo Godoy; Allison Howard Houston; Ernest Rudman; Joseph Zavatsky
Journal:  Ochsner J       Date:  2014

6.  Accuracy of DXA scanning of the thoracic spine: cadaveric studies comparing BMC, areal BMD and geometric estimates of volumetric BMD against ash weight and CT measures of bone volume.

Authors:  Meena M Sran; Karim M Khan; Kathy Keiver; Jason B Chew; Heather A McKay; Thomas R Oxland
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2004-12-23       Impact factor: 3.134

7.  Subsidence after anterior lumbar interbody fusion using paired stand-alone rectangular cages.

Authors:  Jae Young Choi; Kyeong Hoon Sung
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2005-04-21       Impact factor: 3.134

8.  Primary stability of anterior lumbar stabilization: interdependence of implant type and endplate retention or removal.

Authors:  Christian H Flamme; Nadine von der Heide; Caroline Heymann; Christof Hurschler
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2005-08-10       Impact factor: 3.134

9.  Correlation of cervical endplate strength with CT measured subchondral bone density.

Authors:  Nathaniel R Ordway; Yen-Mou Lu; Xingkai Zhang; Chin-Chang Cheng; Huang Fang; Amir H Fayyazi
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2007-08-22       Impact factor: 3.134

10.  The influence of cage positioning and cage type on cage migration and fusion rates in patients with monosegmental posterior lumbar interbody fusion and posterior fixation.

Authors:  Alexander Abbushi; Mario Cabraja; Ulrich-Wilhelm Thomale; Christian Woiciechowsky; Stefan Nikolaus Kroppenstedt
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-05-28       Impact factor: 3.134

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.