Literature DB >> 16133078

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

M Spruit1, R G Falk, L Beckmann, T Steffen, R M Castelein.   

Abstract

UNLABELLED: This biomechanical study was performed to test the primary segmental in vitro stabilising effect of a standard and large footprint radiolucent poly-ether-ether-ketone (PEEK) box cage versus a titanium box cage for anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Eighteen L2-L3 and sixteen L4-L5 cadaveric motion segments were divided into three groups and received a titanium cage or a radiolucent PEEK cage with standard or large footprint. All specimens were tested in three testing conditions: intact, stand-alone anterior cage and finally with supplemental translaminar screw fixation. Full range of motion and neutral zone measurements were determined and anterior cage pull out force was tested. The titanium design was significantly more effective in reducing the range of motion only in axial rotation. The larger footprint radiolucent cage did not increase stability as compared to the standard footprint. The titanium cage pull out force was significantly (P=0.0002) higher compared to both radiolucent cage constructs. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Supplemental posterior fixation is strongly recommended to increase initial stability of any anterior interbody fusion cage construct. Although the biomechanical stability necessary to achieve spinal fusion is not defined, the radiolucent designs tested in this study, with a standard footprint as well as with a larger footprint, may be insufficiently stabilised with translaminar screws as compared to the titanium implant. Supplemental pedicle screw fixation may be required to obtain adequate stabilisation in the clinical setting.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16133078      PMCID: PMC3489261          DOI: 10.1007/s00586-005-0961-z

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


  35 in total

1.  Biomechanical stability of five stand-alone anterior lumbar interbody fusion constructs.

Authors:  A Tsantrizos; A Andreou; M Aebi; T Steffen
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2000-02       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Effect of implant design and endplate preparation on the compressive strength of interbody fusion constructs.

Authors:  T Steffen; A Tsantrizos; M Aebi
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2000-05-01       Impact factor: 3.468

Review 3.  Symposium: a critical discrepancy-a criteria of successful arthrodesis following interbody spinal fusions.

Authors:  P C McAfee; S D Boden; J W Brantigan; R D Fraser; S D Kuslich; T R Oxland; M M Panjabi; C D Ray; T A Zdeblick
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2001-02-01       Impact factor: 3.468

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.  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

6.  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

7.  Revision strategies for salvaging or improving failed cylindrical cages.

Authors:  P C McAfee; B W Cunningham; G A Lee; C M Orbegoso; C J Haggerty; I L Fedder; S L Griffith
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1999-10-15       Impact factor: 3.468

8.  In vitro biomechanical investigation of the stability and stress-shielding effect of lumbar interbody fusion devices.

Authors:  M Kanayama; B W Cunningham; C J Haggerty; K Abumi; K Kaneda; P C McAfee
Journal:  J Neurosurg       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 5.115

9.  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

10.  Evaluation of lumbar spine fusion. Plain radiographs versus direct surgical exploration and observation.

Authors:  A P Kant; W J Daum; S M Dean; T Uchida
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1995-11-01       Impact factor: 3.468

View more
  8 in total

1.  Fusion and subsidence rate of stand alone anterior lumbar interbody fusion using PEEK cage with recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2.

Authors:  Eyal Behrbalk; Ofir Uri; Ruth M Parks; Rachel Musson; Reuben Chee Cheong Soh; Bronek Maximilian Boszczyk
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-08-19       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Arthrodesis Rate and Patient Reported Outcomes After Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Utilizing a Plasma-Sprayed Titanium Coated PEEK Interbody Implant: A Retrospective, Observational Analysis.

Authors:  Joseph A Sclafani; Sophea R Bergen; Miranda Staples; Kevin Liang; Ramin Raiszadeh
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2017-01-13

3.  In Vitro and In Vivo Comparison of Bone Growth Characteristics in Additive-Manufactured Porous Titanium, Nonporous Titanium, and Porous Tantalum Interbody Cages.

Authors:  Meng-Huang Wu; Ming-Hsueh Lee; Christopher Wu; Pei-I Tsai; Wei-Bin Hsu; Shin-I Huang; Tzu-Hung Lin; Kuo-Yi Yang; Chih-Yu Chen; Shih-Hao Chen; Ching-Yu Lee; Tsung-Jen Huang; Fang-Hei Tsau; Yen-Yao Li
Journal:  Materials (Basel)       Date:  2022-05-20       Impact factor: 3.748

Review 4.  PEEK biomaterials in trauma, orthopedic, and spinal implants.

Authors:  Steven M Kurtz; John N Devine
Journal:  Biomaterials       Date:  2007-08-07       Impact factor: 12.479

5.  [Biomechanical study of a ventral stand-alone cage for the lumbar spine with and without additional posterior fixation].

Authors:  U Vieweg; M Liner; M Lühn; A Neurauter; M Blauth; W Schmoelz
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 1.004

6.  Cage subsidence in lateral interbody fusion with transpsoas approach: intraoperative endplate injury or late-onset settling.

Authors:  Kotaro Satake; Tokumi Kanemura; Hiroaki Nakashima; Hidetoshi Yamaguchi; Naoki Segi; Jun Ouchida
Journal:  Spine Surg Relat Res       Date:  2017-11-27

7.  Vertebral Endplate Cyst Formation in Relation to Properties of Interbody Cages.

Authors:  Manabu Sasaki; Masao Umegaki; Takanori Fukunaga; Yasukazu Hijikata; Yohei Banba; Katsumi Matsumoto; Yasuyoshi Miyao
Journal:  Neurospine       Date:  2021-03-31

8.  Biomechanical investigation of extragraft bone formation influences on the operated motion segment after anterior cervical spinal discectomy and fusion.

Authors:  Won Man Park; Yong Jun Jin
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2019-12-11       Impact factor: 4.379

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.