[Stabilizing effect and sintering tendency of 3 different cages and bone cement for fusion of cervical vertebrae segments].

Important requirement for spinal fusion devices for segment are that they provide sufficient stability and guarantee a low subsidence risk. An important requirement for spinal fusion devices for segments are that they provide sufficient stability and guarantee a low subsidence risk. Therefore, in the following in vitro study, the stabilizing effect and subsidence tendency of cervical fusion cages and bone cement were investigated during cyclic loading. The WING cages (Medinorm AG) and BAK cages (Spinetec) made of titanium, the carbon fiber reinforced PEEK cage from Acromed (DePuy Acromed), and bone cement (PMMA, Sulzer) were tested. Twenty-four human cervical spine specimens were first tested intact with a standardized flexibility test (+/- 2.5 Nm). Then the implants were inserted and the primary stability determined. For the simulation of the postoperative loading of the cervical spine a cyclic loading protocol with 700 loading cycles was performed. In this test pure moments +/- 2.0 Nm in 9 different loading directions in randomized order were applied together with a 50 N preload to simulate the weight of the head. The subsidence and "long term stability" was measured after 50, 100, 200, 300, 500, and 700 cycles. All implants had a stabilizing effect in all directions most obviously in lateral bending. Here the range of motion was between 20.9% (AcroMed Cage), and 62% (BAK Cage) with respect to the intact specimen (100%). In laterial bending, flexion, and axial rotation the AcroMed cage stabilized the most followed by the bone cement, WING and BAK Cage. In extension the specimens treated with bone cement were the most stable. After 700 loading cycles the specimens with the BAK cage lost 1.6 mm in height, with the WING Cage 0.8 mm, with the Acromed 0.7 mm, and with the bone cement 0.5 mm. Two Acromed Cages dislocated during the long term testing. Cages have the potential to stabilize as effectively as bone cement. A smaller contact area, however, causes a higher subsidence risk compared to bone cement but increases the fusion area, thus increasing the chance of obtaining bony fusion.