Literature DB >> 12783287

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

Anne Polikeit1, Stephen J Ferguson, Lutz P Nolte, Tracy E Orr.   

Abstract

Intervertebral cages in the lumbar spine represent an advancement in spinal fusion to relieve low back pain. Different implant designs require different endplate preparations, but the question of to what extent preservation of the bony endplate might be necessary remains unanswered. In this study the effects of endplate properties and their distribution on stresses in a lumbar functional spinal unit were investigated using finite-element analyses. Three-dimensional finite-element models of L2-L3 with and without a cage were used. An anterior approach for a monobloc, box-shaped cage was modelled. The results showed that inserting a cage increased the maximum von Mises stress and changed the load distribution in the adjacent structures. A harder endplate led to increased concentration of the stress peaks and high stresses were propagated further into the vertebral body, into areas that would usually not experience such stresses. This may cause structural changes and provide an explanation for the damage occurring to the underlying bone, as well as for the subsequent subsidence of the cage. Stress distributions were similar for the two endplate preparation techniques of complete endplate preservation and partial endplate removal from the centre. It can be concluded that cages should be designed such that they rely on the strong peripheral part of the endplate for support and offer a large volume for the graft. Furthermore, the adjacent vertebrae should be assessed to ensure that they show sufficient density in the peripheral regions to tolerate the altered load transfer following cage insertion until an adequate adaptation to the new loading situation is produced by the remodelling process.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12783287      PMCID: PMC3467986          DOI: 10.1007/s00586-003-0556-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Spine J        ISSN: 0940-6719            Impact factor:   3.134


  37 in total

1.  Mechanical augmentation of the vertebral body by calcium phosphate cement injection.

Authors:  M Ikeuchi; H Yamamoto; T Shibata; M Otani
Journal:  J Orthop Sci       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 1.601

2.  Cages: outcome and complications.

Authors:  R C Mulholland
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2000-02       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  Inhomogeneity of human vertebral cancellous bone: systematic density and structure patterns inside the vertebral body.

Authors:  X Banse; J P Devogelaer; E Munting; C Delloye; O Cornu; M Grynpas
Journal:  Bone       Date:  2001-05       Impact factor: 4.398

4.  Mapping the structural properties of the lumbosacral vertebral endplates.

Authors:  J P Grant; T R Oxland; M F Dvorak
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2001-04-15       Impact factor: 3.468

5.  Stress distribution changes in bovine vertebrae just below the endplate after sustained loading.

Authors:  J H van Dieën; I Kingma; R Meijer; L Hänsel; R Huiskes
Journal:  Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 2.063

6.  Lumbar interbody fusion using the Brantigan I/F cage for posterior lumbar interbody fusion and the variable pedicle screw placement system: two-year results from a Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption clinical trial.

Authors:  J W Brantigan; A D Steffee; M L Lewis; L M Quinn; J M Persenaire
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2000-06-01       Impact factor: 3.468

7.  Structural features and thickness of the vertebral cortex in the thoracolumbar spine.

Authors:  W T Edwards; Y Zheng; L A Ferrara; H A Yuan
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2001-01-15       Impact factor: 3.468

8.  Radiographic characteristics on conventional radiographs after posterior lumbar interbody fusion: comparative study between radiotranslucent and radiopaque cages.

Authors:  O Diedrich; L Perlick; O Schmitt; C N Kraft
Journal:  J Spinal Disord       Date:  2001-12

9.  The effect of nucleotomy on lumbar spine mechanics in compression and shear loading.

Authors:  H Frei; T R Oxland; G C Rathonyi; L P Nolte
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2001-10-01       Impact factor: 3.468

10.  Four-year follow-up results of lumbar spine arthrodesis using the Bagby and Kuslich lumbar fusion cage.

Authors:  S D Kuslich; G Danielson; J D Dowdle; J Sherman; B Fredrickson; H Yuan; S L Griffith
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2000-10-15       Impact factor: 3.468

View more
  19 in total

Review 1.  Bioresorbable polymers: heading for a new generation of spinal cages.

Authors:  P I J M Wuisman; T H Smit
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2005-11-15       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 2.  [The PLIF and TLIF techniques. Indication, technique, advantages, and disadvantages].

Authors:  C Fleege; M Rickert; M Rauschmann
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 1.087

3.  Treatment of Symptomatic Lumbar Disc Degeneration with the VariLift-L Interbody Fusion System: Retrospective Review of 470 Cases.

Authors:  Warren F Neely; Frank Fichtel; Diana Cardenas Del Monaco; Jon E Block
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2016-05-03

4.  [Posterior lumbar interbody fusion implants. Software assisted planning--preliminary results].

Authors:  M Rickert; M Arabmotlagh; C Carstens; E Behrbalk; M Rauschmann; C Fleege
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 1.087

5.  The in vitro stabilising effect of polyetheretherketone cages versus a titanium cage of similar design for anterior lumbar interbody fusion.

Authors:  M Spruit; R G Falk; L Beckmann; T Steffen; R M Castelein
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2005-08-17       Impact factor: 3.134

6.  The long-term mechanical integrity of non-reinforced PEEK-OPTIMA polymer for demanding spinal applications: experimental and finite-element analysis.

Authors:  Stephen J Ferguson; Judith M A Visser; Anne Polikeit
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2005-06-07       Impact factor: 3.134

7.  Footprint mismatch in lumbar total disc arthroplasty.

Authors:  Michaela Gstoettner; Gstoettner Michaela; Denise Heider; Heider Denise; Michael Liebensteiner; Christian Michael Bach; Bach Christian Michael
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2008-09-13       Impact factor: 3.134

8.  The distribution of mineral density in the cervical vertebral endplates.

Authors:  Magdalena Müller-Gerbl; Stefan Weißer; Ulrich Linsenmeier
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2008-01-12       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 9.  Strategies to Achieve Spinal Fusion in Multilevel Anterior Cervical Spine Surgery: An Overview.

Authors:  Michael H McCarthy; Joseph A Weiner; Alpesh A Patel
Journal:  HSS J       Date:  2019-12-09

10.  Anterior lumbar interbody implants: importance of the interdevice distance.

Authors:  Brian R Subach; Anne G Copay; Marcus M Martin; Thomas C Schuler
Journal:  Adv Orthop       Date:  2011-03-10
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.