Literature DB >> 15770178

Interbody device shape and size are important to strengthen the vertebra-implant interface.

Juay-Seng Tan1, Christopher S Bailey, Marcel F Dvorak, Charles G Fisher, Thomas R Oxland.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: An in vitro cadaveric study to compare compressive failure load, strength, and stiffness of the implant-vertebra interface.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect of cage shape (kidney, cloverleaf, or oval) and cage surface area on endplate failure strength and secondly to determine the extent and pattern of trabecular failure adjacent to an interbody device. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Recent studies indicate that the posterolateral and peripheral regions of the endplate are stronger than the central. Current implants are not designed to take advantage of these stronger regions of the endplate. The zone of trabecular failure that results from interbody device subsidence has not been reported extensively in the literature.
METHODS: Uniaxial compression testing with unrestricted rotation was carried out on the superior endplates of 48 thoracolumbar (T9-L2) vertebrae with 1 of 3 shaped indentors covering 20% or 40% of the endplate area. Failure load, failure strength, and stiffness were compared. Quantitative computed tomography scans were carried out before and following indentation tests to identify areas of trabecular densification that indicate localized failure.
RESULTS: The cloverleaf-shaped indentors resulted in significantly higher (P < 0.001) failure loads (by >45%), strength (>49%), and construct stiffness (>35%) for both the 20% and 40% cross-sectional area sizes. Trabecular bone failure occurred in a semielliptical zone underlying the interbody devices, leaving the endplate and underlying cancellous bone intact.
CONCLUSIONS: The cloverleaf-shaped indentor displayed an improved strength and stiffness profile when compared to oval or kidney-shaped indentors of similar surface areas.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15770178     DOI: 10.1097/01.brs.0000155419.24198.35

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


  18 in total

1.  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

Review 2.  [Intervertebral cages from a biomechanical point of view].

Authors:  W Schmoelz; A Keiler
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 1.087

3.  Two-piece ALIF cage optimizes the bone-implant interface in a 360° setting.

Authors:  Hans-Joachim Wilke; David Volkheimer; Bruce Robie; Finn B Christensen
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2017-02-28       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  The importance of loading the periphery of the vertebral endplate.

Authors:  Joseph Cadman; Chester Sutterlin; Danè Dabirrahmani; Richard Appleyard
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2016-09

5.  Can an Endplate-conformed Cervical Cage Provide a Better Biomechanical Environment than a Typical Non-conformed Cage?: A Finite Element Model and Cadaver Study.

Authors:  Fan Zhang; Hao-Cheng Xu; Bo Yin; Xin-Lei Xia; Xiao-Sheng Ma; Hong-Li Wang; Jun Yin; Ming-Hao Shao; Fei-Zhou Lyu; Jian-Yuan Jiang
Journal:  Orthop Surg       Date:  2016-08       Impact factor: 2.071

6.  Augmentation improves human cadaveric vertebral body compression mechanics for lumbar total disc replacement.

Authors:  Jonathon H Yoder; Joshua D Auerbach; Philip M Maurer; Erik M Erbe; Dean Entrekin; Richard A Balderston; Rudolf Bertagnoli; Dawn M Elliott
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2010-04-20       Impact factor: 3.468

7.  Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with expandable articulating interbody spacers significantly improves radiographic outcomes compared to static interbody spacers.

Authors:  Anthony J Russo; Steven A Schopler; Katelyn J Stetzner; Torrey Shirk
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2021-09

8.  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

9.  Multiexpandable cage for minimally invasive posterior lumbar interbody fusion.

Authors:  Jeffrey D Coe; James F Zucherman; Donald W Kucharzyk; Kornelis A Poelstra; Larry E Miller; Sandeep Kunwar
Journal:  Med Devices (Auckl)       Date:  2016-09-28

10.  Modified technique of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for segmental correction of lumbar kyphosis: a safe alternative to osteotomies?

Authors:  Sebastian Weckbach; Heiko Reichel; Michael Kraus; Tugrul Kocak; Friederike Lattig
Journal:  Patient Saf Surg       Date:  2017-07-05
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.