Literature DB >> 16763843

Biomechanical study of a hat type cervical intervertebral fusion cage.

Yu-Tong Gu1, Lian-Shun Jia, Tong-Yi Chen.   

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the biomechanical effect of a hat type cervical intervertebral fusion cage (HCIFC). In this in vitro biomechanical study, 48 goat cervical spines (C2-5) were tested in flexion, extension, axial rotation, and lateral bending with a nondestructive stiffness method using a nonconstrained testing apparatus, and three-dimensional displacement was measured. Autologous iliac bone and cervical spine intervertebral fusion cage were implanted according to manufacturers' information after complete discectomy (C3-4). Eight spines in each of the following groups were tested: intact, autologous iliac bone graft, Harms cage, SynCage C, carbon cage, and HCIFC. The mean apparent stiffness values were calculated from the corresponding load-displacement curves. Additionally, cage volume and volume-related stiffness were determined. The stiffness of the SynCage C was statistically greatest in all directions. After implantation of the HCIFC, flexion stiffness increased compared with that of the intact motion segment. There was no significant difference in stiffness between the HCIFC and carbon cage. The stiffness of the HCIFC was statistically higher than that of the Harms cage in axial rotation and significantly lower in flexion, extension, and lateral bending. Volume-related stiffness of all cages was higher than that of iliac bone graft. The Harms cage was highest in volume-related stiffness in all directions. The HCIFC can provide enough primary stability for cervical intervertebral fusion.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16763843      PMCID: PMC2267542          DOI: 10.1007/s00264-006-0141-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int Orthop        ISSN: 0341-2695            Impact factor:   3.075


  17 in total

1.  Compressive strength of interbody cages in the lumbar spine: the effect of cage shape, posterior instrumentation and bone density.

Authors:  B Jost; P A Cripton; T Lund; T R Oxland; K Lippuner; P Jaeger; L P Nolte
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  1998       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Finite element analysis of anterior cervical spine interbody fusion.

Authors:  S Kumaresan; N Yoganandan; F A Pintar
Journal:  Biomed Mater Eng       Date:  1997       Impact factor: 1.300

Review 3.  Spine update lumbar interbody cages.

Authors:  B K Weiner; R D Fraser
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1998-03-01       Impact factor: 3.468

4.  Preliminary experience of carbon fibre cage prostheses for treatment of cervical spine disorders.

Authors:  N S Brooke; A W Rorke; A T King; R W Gullan
Journal:  Br J Neurosurg       Date:  1997-06       Impact factor: 1.596

5.  Surgical anatomy of the anterior cervical spine: the disc space, vertebral artery, and associated bony structures.

Authors:  T G Pait; J A Killefer; K I Arnautovic
Journal:  Neurosurgery       Date:  1996-10       Impact factor: 4.654

6.  Bony and vascular anatomy of the normal cervical spine in the sheep.

Authors:  C C Cain; R D Fraser
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1995-04-01       Impact factor: 3.468

7.  Influence of cage design on interbody fusion in a sheep cervical spine model.

Authors:  Frank Kandziora; Georg Schollmeier; Matti Scholz; Jan Schaefer; Alexandra Scholz; Gerhard Schmidmaier; Ralf Schröder; Herman Bail; Georg Duda; Thomas Mittlmeier; Norbert P Haas
Journal:  J Neurosurg       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 5.115

8.  Are sheep spines a valid biomechanical model for human spines?

Authors:  H J Wilke; A Kettler; L E Claes
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1997-10-15       Impact factor: 3.468

9.  Comparison between sheep and human cervical spines: an anatomic, radiographic, bone mineral density, and biomechanical study.

Authors:  F Kandziora; R Pflugmacher; M Scholz; K Schnake; M Lucke; R Schröder; T Mittlmeier
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2001-05-01       Impact factor: 3.468

10.  Anterior interbody fusion with the BAK-cage in cervical spondylosis.

Authors:  G Matge
Journal:  Acta Neurochir (Wien)       Date:  1998       Impact factor: 2.216

View more
  6 in total

1.  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

2.  In vivo experimental study of hat type cervical intervertebral fusion cage (HCIFC).

Authors:  Yu-tong Gu; Zhen-jun Yao; Lian-shun Jia; Jin Qi; Jun Wang
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2010-02-27       Impact factor: 3.075

3.  Two-level contiguous cervical disc disease treated with peek cages packed with demineralized bone matrix: results of 3-year follow-up.

Authors:  Kivanç Topuz; Ahmet Colak; Serdar Kaya; Hakan Simşek; Murat Kutlay; Mehmet Nusret Demircan; Murat Velioğlu
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-01-08       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cage filled with cancellous allograft in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion.

Authors:  Jen-Chung Liao; Chi-Chien Niu; Wen-Jer Chen; Lih-Huei Chen
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2007-07-17       Impact factor: 3.075

5.  Operative management of a non-traumatic cervico-thoracic spondylolisthesis: a case report.

Authors:  Stefan Zwingenberger; Mario Leimert; Roberto D Valladares; Volker M Betz; Jens Seifert
Journal:  J Med Case Rep       Date:  2012-06-12

6.  Single-level anterior cervical discectomy and interbody fusion using PEEK anatomical cervical cage and allograft bone.

Authors:  C Faldini; M Chehrassan; M T Miscione; F Acri; M d'Amato; C Pungetti; D Luciani; S Giannini
Journal:  J Orthop Traumatol       Date:  2011-11-17
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.