Literature DB >> 16205328

The effect of interbody cage positioning on lumbosacral vertebral endplate failure in compression.

Robert D Labrom1, Juay-Seng Tan, Christopher W Reilly, Stephen J Tredwell, Charles G Fisher, Thomas R Oxland.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: A biomechanical investigation using a human cadaver, multisegmental lumbosacral spine model.
OBJECTIVES: To determine if 2 small, posterolaterally positioned titanium mesh interbody cages would provide superior construct strength and stiffness in compression compared to central cage placement. In addition, determine construct stiffness with interbody cages as opposed to an intact spine and assess the effect of bone mineral density (BMD). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Previous work has shown that the posterolateral corners of the lumbosacral endplates are stronger than the anterior and central regions. Information to suggest appropriate interbody cage positioning to avoid subsidence into adjacent vertebrae would be valuable for spine surgeons and implant designers.
METHODS: A total of 27 functional spinal units from L3 to S1 were dual x-ray absorptiometry scanned for BMD, instrumented with pedicle screw systems, and tested to failure in compression with titanium mesh interbody cages placed in 1 of 3 positions: 2 small posterolateral, 2 small central, or 1 large central. Analysis of covariance was conducted to compare failure load and stiffness across the different cage configurations. Repeated measures analysis of variance was used to analyze stiffness between functional spinal units with intact disc, discectomy, or interbody cages. Failure load was correlated against BMD.
RESULTS: Of the 3 placement patterns, 2 small titanium mesh cages in the posterolateral corners had 20% higher failure loads, although the difference was not significant (P = 0.20). Stiffness in compression for the 3 cage positions was not significantly different (P = 0.82). All intact discs with posterior instrumentation were significantly stiffer than any of the cage patterns (P = 0.0001). BMD of the vertebrae significantly correlated with failure loads (P = 0.007).
CONCLUSIONS: The placement of 2 small interbody cages posterolaterally tended to result in higher failure loads than central cage placement, although the results were not statistically significant. It is noteworthy that cage placement in any position resulted in a less stiff construct in compression than with an intact disc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16205328     DOI: 10.1097/01.brs.0000181053.38677.c2

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


  10 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.  Do position and size matter? An analysis of cage and placement variables for optimum lordosis in PLIF reconstruction.

Authors:  Priyan R Landham; Angus S Don; Peter A Robertson
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2017-06-15       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  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

5.  Factors influencing segmental lumbar lordosis after lateral transpsoas interbody fusion.

Authors:  Christopher K Kepler; Russel C Huang; Amit K Sharma; Dennis S Meredith; Ochuko Metitiri; Andrew A Sama; Federico P Girardi; Frank P Cammisa
Journal:  Orthop Surg       Date:  2012-05       Impact factor: 2.071

6.  Risk factors for cage subsidence and clinical outcomes after transforaminal and posterior lumbar interbody fusion.

Authors:  Tiago Amorim-Barbosa; Catarina Pereira; Diogo Catelas; Cláudia Rodrigues; Paulo Costa; Ricardo Rodrigues-Pinto; Pedro Neves
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2021-08-31

7.  Deterioration of the fixation segment's stress distribution and the strength reduction of screw holding position together cause screw loosening in ALSR fixed OLIF patients with poor BMD.

Authors:  Jing-Chi Li; Zhi-Qiang Yang; Tian-Hang Xie; Zhe-Tao Song; Yue-Ming Song; Jian-Cheng Zeng
Journal:  Front Bioeng Biotechnol       Date:  2022-08-30

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.  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

10.  Biomechanical Effects of Pedicle Screw Positioning on the Surgical Segment in Models After Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion: An in-silico Study.

Authors:  Chen Xu; Chenyi Huang; Ping Cai; Zhongxin Fang; Zhangchao Wei; Fei Liu; Jingchi Li; Yang Liu
Journal:  Int J Gen Med       Date:  2022-02-02
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.