Literature DB >> 16946652

Effect of lumbar interbody cage geometry on construct stability: a cadaveric study.

Sasidhar Vadapalli1, Matt Robon, Ashok Biyani, Koichi Sairyo, Ashutosh Khandha, Vijay K Goel.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: Biomechanical study to investigate three-dimensional motion behavior of cadaveric spines in various surgical simulations.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect of cage geometry on the construct stability. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: There is a wide variety of cage/spacer designs available for lumbar interbody fusion surgery. These range from circular, tapered, and rectangular with and without curvature. However, the effectiveness of cages with different designs and materials to stabilize a decompressed intervertebral space has not been fully studied.
METHODS: Six fresh ligamentous lumbar spine specimens (L1-S2) were subjected to pure moments in the six loading directions. The resulting spatial orientations of the vertebrae were recorded using Optotrak Motion Measurement System. Measurements were made sequentially for intact, bilateral spacer placements across L4-L5 using a posterior approach, supplemented with pedicle screw-rod system fixation, and after the cyclic loading in flexion-extension mode.
RESULTS: The stability tended to decrease after the bilateral cage placement as compared with the intact for all loading cases except flexion. In flexion, the angular displacement decreased to 80% of the intact. However, there was no significant statistical difference seen in stability between intact and after bilateral spacer placement. Following the addition of posterior fixation using pedicle screw-rod system, the stability significantly increased in all directions. Cyclic loading did not have any significant effect on the stability.
CONCLUSIONS: Stand-alone cages restore motion to near-intact levels at best, and supplement instrumentation is essential for significantly increasing the stability of the decompressed segment. The effects of cage geometry and Young's modulus of the cage material do not seem to influence the stability, as compared with the other cagedesigns, especially after supplemental fixation with a posterior system.

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16946652     DOI: 10.1097/01.brs.0000232720.23748.ce

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


  7 in total

Review 1.  Role of lumbar interspinous distraction on the neural elements.

Authors:  Alex Alfieri; Roberto Gazzeri; Julian Prell; Christian Scheller; Jens Rachinger; Christian Strauss; Andreas Schwarz
Journal:  Neurosurg Rev       Date:  2012-05-02       Impact factor: 3.042

2.  Evaluation of unilateral cage-instrumented fixation for lumbar spine.

Authors:  Ti-Sheng Chang; Jia-Hao Chang; Chien-Shiung Wang; Hung-Yi Chen; Ching-Wei Cheng
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2010-11-11       Impact factor: 2.359

Review 3.  [Intervertebral cages from a biomechanical point of view].

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

4.  Integrated Fixation Cage Loosening Under Fatigue Loading.

Authors:  Srinidhi Nagaraja; Vivek Palepu
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2017-06-28

5.  Biomechanical effects of an oblique lumbar interbody fusion combined with posterior augmentation: a finite element analysis.

Authors:  Shengjia Huang; Shaoxiong Min; Suwei Wang; Anmin Jin
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2022-06-27       Impact factor: 2.562

6.  A Biomechanical Comparison of Shape Design and Positioning of Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Cages.

Authors:  Garet C Comer; Anthony Behn; Shashank Ravi; Ivan Cheng
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2015-09-14

Review 7.  Controversies about interspinous process devices in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spine diseases: past, present, and future.

Authors:  Roberto Gazzeri; Marcelo Galarza; Alex Alfieri
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2014-04-13       Impact factor: 3.411

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.