Literature DB >> 14589184

Biomechanical comparison of cervical interbody cage versus structural bone graft.

David L Greene1, Neil R Crawford, Robert H Chamberlain, Sung Chan Park, Dennis Crandall.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Clinically, cervical interbody cages provide fusion rates equivalent to structural bone grafting. No published studies have biomechanically compared cages with grafts.
PURPOSE: We sought to compare the stability offered by threaded interbody cages versus structural bone graft and to evaluate the additional stability provided by adding a one- or two-level anterior plate to both interbody techniques. STUDY DESIGN/
SETTING: Nondestructive nonconstraining repeated-measures in vitro flexibility tests were performed on surgically instrumented specimens. SUBJECT SAMPLE: Sixteen human cadaveric specimens were separated into two groups (specimens receiving graft and specimens receiving cage) with matched bone mineral density. OUTCOME MEASURES: Angular range of motion (ROM), neutral zone (NZ) and elastic zone (EZ) were quantified to assess stability. Student's t tests compared outcomes between and within groups.
METHODS: Quasistatic nonconstraining torques (maximum 1.5 Nm) induced flexion, extension, lateral bending and axial rotation while angular motion was recorded stereophotogrammetrically. Specimens were tested normal, after discectomy, with graft or cage, with two-level plate and with one-level plate.
RESULTS: Graft alone and cage alone reduced ROM and EZ but not NZ to within normal. In both groups, adding a one- or two-level plate significantly reduced motion in all modes of loading. There were no significant differences in motion parameters between groups whether plated or unplated. A two-level plate provided significantly better stability than a one-level plate.
CONCLUSIONS: The interbody cage performed equivalently to the structural graft. Substantial increases in stability can be gained for either interbody technique by adding an anterior plate.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14589184     DOI: 10.1016/s1529-9430(03)00029-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine J        ISSN: 1529-9430            Impact factor:   4.166


  6 in total

1.  Use of cervical stand-alone cages.

Authors:  Wolfgang Börm; Klaus Seitz
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2004-04-27       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Cervical anterior transpedicular screw fixation. Part I: Study on morphological feasibility, indications, and technical prerequisites.

Authors:  Heiko Koller; Axel Hempfing; Frank Acosta; Michael Fox; Armin Scheiter; Mark Tauber; Ulrich Holz; Herbert Resch; Wolfgang Hitzl
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2008-01-26       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  Static and dynamic fatigue behavior of topology designed and conventional 3D printed bioresorbable PCL cervical interbody fusion devices.

Authors:  Ashleen R Knutsen; Sean L Borkowski; Edward Ebramzadeh; Colleen L Flanagan; Scott J Hollister; Sophia N Sangiorgio
Journal:  J Mech Behav Biomed Mater       Date:  2015-05-27

Review 4.  4- and 5-level anterior fusions of the cervical spine: review of literature and clinical results.

Authors:  Heiko Koller; Axel Hempfing; Luis Ferraris; Oliver Maier; Wolfgang Hitzl; Peter Metz-Stavenhagen
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2007-06-29       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  Autograft versus interbody fusion cage without plate fixation in the cervical spine: a randomized clinical study using radiostereometry.

Authors:  Bengt I Lind; Björn Zoega; Hans Rosén
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2007-03-07       Impact factor: 3.134

6.  Risk factors for subsidence in anterior cervical fusion with stand-alone polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages: a review of 82 cases and 182 levels.

Authors:  Ting-Hsien Kao; Chen-Hao Wu; Yu-Ching Chou; Hsien-Te Chen; Wen-Hsien Chen; Hsi-Kai Tsou
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2014-08-07       Impact factor: 3.067

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.