Literature DB >> 19457722

Interbody device endplate engagement effects on motion segment biomechanics.

Glenn R Buttermann1, Brian P Beaubien, Andrew L Freeman, James E Stoll, James L Chappuis.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Stand-alone nonbiologic interbody fusion devices for the lumbar spine have been used for interbody fusion since the early 1990s. However, most devices lack the stability found in clinically successful circumferential fusion constructs. Stability results from cage geometry and device/vertebral endplate interface integrity. To date, there has not been a published comparative biomechanical study specifically evaluating the effects of endplate engagement of interbody devices.
PURPOSE: Lumbar motion segments implanted with three different interbody devices were tested biomechanically to compare the effects of endplate engagement on motion segment rigidity. The degree of additional effect of supplemental posterior and anterior fixation was also investigated. STUDY DESIGN/
SETTING: A cadaveric study of interbody fusion devices with varying degrees of endplate interdigitation. OUTCOME MEASURES: Implanted motion segment range of motion (ROM), neutral zone (NZ), stiffness, and disc height.
METHODS: Eighteen human L23 and L45 motion segments were distributed into three interbody groups (n=6 each) receiving a polymeric (polyetheretherketone) interbody spacer with small ridges; a modular interbody device with endplate spikes (InFix, Abbott Spine, Austin, TX, USA); or dual tapered threaded interbody cages (LT [Lordotic tapered] cage; Medtronic, Memphis, TN, USA). Specimens were tested intact using a 7.5-Nm flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial torsion flexibility protocol. Testing was repeated after implantation of the interbody device, anterior plate fixation, and posterior interpedicular fixation. Radiographic measurements determined changes in disc height and intervertebral lordosis. ROM and NZ were calculated and compared using analysis of variance.
RESULTS: The interbody cages with endplate spikes or threads provided a statistically greater increase in disc height versus the polymer spacer (p=.01). Relative to intact, all stand-alone devices significantly reduced ROM in lateral bending by a mean 37% to 61% (p< or =.001). The cages with endplate spikes or threads reduced ROM by approximately 50% and NZ by approximately 60% in flexion-extension (p< or =.02). Only the cage with endplate spikes provided a statistically significant reduction in axial torsion ROM compared with the intact state (50% decrease, p<.001). Posterior fixation provided a significant reduction in ROM in all directions versus the interbody device alone (p<.001). Anterior plating decreased ROM over interbody device alone in flexion-extension and torsion but did not have additional effect on lateral bending ROM.
CONCLUSION: The cages with endplate spikes or threads provide substantial motion segment rigidity compared with intact in bending modes. Only the cages with endplate spikes were more rigid than intact in torsion. All devices experienced increased rigidity with anterior plating and even greater rigidity with posterior fixation. It appears that the endplate engagement with spikes may be beneficial in limiting torsion, which is generally difficult with other "stand-alone" devices tested in the current and prior reports.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19457722     DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2009.03.014

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine J        ISSN: 1529-9430            Impact factor:   4.166


  12 in total

1.  Morphological studies of cartilage endplates in subaxial cervical region.

Authors:  Songchuan Zhao; Dingjun Hao; Yonghong Jiang; Dageng Huang; Chaoyuan Ge; Hang Feng
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-11-26       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Geometry of thoracolumbar vertebral endplates of the human spine.

Authors:  Hong Chen; Dianming Jiang; Yunsheng Ou; Jian Zhong; Fajin Lv
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-04-08       Impact factor: 3.134

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.  Sagittal geometry of the middle and lower cervical endplates.

Authors:  Hong Chen; Jian Zhong; Jixiang Tan; Dandong Wu; Dianming Jiang
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-04-24       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  Evolution of Design of Interbody Cages for Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion.

Authors:  Kevin Phan; Ralph J Mobbs
Journal:  Orthop Surg       Date:  2016-08       Impact factor: 2.071

6.  Expandable Interbody Fusion Cages: An Editorial on the Surgeon's Perspective on Recent Technological Advances and Their Biomechanical Implications.

Authors:  Kai-Uwe Lewandrowski; Lisa Ferrara; Boyle Cheng
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2020-10-29

7.  The current testing protocols for biomechanical evaluation of lumbar spinal implants in laboratory setting: a review of the literature.

Authors:  Sabrina A Gonzalez-Blohm; James J Doulgeris; William E Lee; Thomas M Shea; Kamran Aghayev; Frank D Vrionis
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2015-02-15       Impact factor: 3.411

8.  Anterior lumbar interbody fusion: two-year results with a modular interbody device.

Authors:  Keith Lynn Jackson; Chevas Yeoman; Woosik M Chung; James L Chappuis; Brett Freedman
Journal:  Asian Spine J       Date:  2014-10-18

9.  A morphometric study of the middle and lower cervical vertebral endplates and their components.

Authors:  Hang Feng; Xiang-Yi Fang; Da-Geng Huang; Cheng-Cheng Yu; Hou-Kun Li; Song-Chuan Zhao; Chao-Yuan Ge; Ru-Hai Bai; Ding-Jun Hao
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2017-03       Impact factor: 1.889

10.  Evaluation of lumbar fusion using the anterior to psoas approach for the treatment of L5/S1 spondylolisthesis.

Authors:  Wei He; Da He; Wei Tian
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2020-06-05       Impact factor: 1.817

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.