Literature DB >> 20975485

In vivo deformation, surface damage, and biostability of retrieved Dynesys systems.

Allyson Ianuzzi1, Steven M Kurtz, William Kane, Priyanka Shah, Ryan Siskey, Andre van Ooij, Rajesh Bindal, Raymond Ross, Todd Lanman, Karin Büttner-Janz, Jorge Isaza.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: Retrospective retrieval analysis.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate wear, deformation and biodegradation within retrieved polycarbonate urethane (PCU) components of Dynesys systems. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The Dynesys Dynamic Stabilization System (Zimmer Spine) consists of pedicle screws (Ti alloy), polycarbonate urethane (PCU) spacers, and a polyethylene-terephthalate cord.
METHODS: Seventeen retrieved (mean implantation: 2.5 years, range: 0.7-7.0 years) and 2 exemplar implant systems were available. Reasons for revision were persistent pain (16/17), infection (1/17), and/or screw loosening (11/17), with 1/17 case of implant migration. Optical microscopy, microCT, and scanning electron microscopy were conducted to evaluate PCU spacer wear and deformation. Attenuated total reflectance Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy was used to assess spacer surface chemical composition.
RESULTS: Retrieved spacer components exhibited permanent bending deformation (mean: 4.3°, range: 0.0°-15.8°). We observed evidence of PCU spacer contact with pedicle screws, cords, and surrounding bony structures (74/75, 69/75, and 51/75 spacers, respectively). Relatively infrequent damage modes included PCU fracture (1/75 spacers) or cracking (2/75 spacers), as well as pedicle screw fracture (3/103 screws). PCU degradation products were identified in 10/75 spacers, which represented retrievals having significantly longer implantation times (mean: 4.3 years, range: 1.0-7.0 years). Of these spacers, 8/10 had degradation peaks identified along the side of the spacer where the material would have been in contact with bodily fluid.
CONCLUSION: PCU spacers from retrieved Dynesys systems exhibited permanent deformation, focal regions of in vivo wear and surface damage. Chemical changes associated with PCU biodegradation were associated with longer-term retrievals. The most frequently observed complication was pedicle screw loosening, with 3 incidences of screw breakage in 2 patients. These retrieval data provide a crucial basis for developing in vitro tests to simulate in vivo damage and degradation of posterior dynamic motion preservation implants. Longer-term retrievals, as well as retrievals that include more recent design features (e.g., HA coating), will be useful to provide a greater context for the clinical implications of our short-term observations.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20975485     DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181d6f84f

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


  11 in total

1.  Biomechanical evaluation of a posterior non-fusion instrumentation of the lumbar spine.

Authors:  Werner Schmoelz; Stefanie Erhart; Stefan Unger; Alexander C Disch
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-12-20       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Elastic resistance of the spine: Why does motion preservation surgery almost fail?

Authors:  Alessandro Landi
Journal:  World J Clin Cases       Date:  2013-07-16       Impact factor: 1.337

3.  Retrieval analysis of PEEK rods for posterior fusion and motion preservation.

Authors:  Steven M Kurtz; Todd H Lanman; Genymphas Higgs; Daniel W Macdonald; Sigurd H Berven; Jorge E Isaza; Eual Phillips; Marla J Steinbeck
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-07-26       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  In vivo biostability of polymeric spine implants: retrieval analyses from a United States investigational device exemption study.

Authors:  Ming Shen; Kai Zhang; Petra Koettig; William C Welch; John M Dawson
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-05-03       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  In vivo preclinical evaluation of the influence of osteoporosis on the anchorage of different pedicle screw designs.

Authors:  Gianluca Giavaresi; Milena Fini; Roberto Giardino; Francesca Salamanna; Maria Sartori; Veronica Borsari; Silvia Spriano; Chiara M Bellini; Marco Brayda-Bruno
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-05-05       Impact factor: 3.134

6.  Biomechanical Comparison between Isobar and Dynamic-Transitional Optima (DTO) Hybrid Lumbar Fixators: A Lumbosacral Finite Element and Intersegmental Motion Analysis.

Authors:  Shih-Hao Chen; Chih-Kun Hsiao; Chih-Wei Wang; Hsiang-Ho Chen; Zheng-Cheng Zhong
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2022-07-08       Impact factor: 3.246

7.  In-vivo degradation of poly(carbonate-urethane) based spine implants.

Authors:  E Cipriani; P Bracco; S M Kurtz; L Costa; M Zanetti
Journal:  Polym Degrad Stab       Date:  2013-06-01       Impact factor: 5.030

8.  Retrieval analysis of motion preserving spinal devices and periprosthetic tissues.

Authors:  Steven M Kurtz; Marla Steinbeck; Allyson Ianuzzi; André van Ooij; Ilona M Punt; Jorge Isaza; E R S Ross
Journal:  SAS J       Date:  2009-12-01

9.  The Change of Sagittal Alignment of the Lumbar Spine after Dynesys Stabilization and Proposal of a Refinement.

Authors:  Won Man Park; Chi Heon Kim; Yoon Hyuk Kim; Chun Kee Chung; Tae-Ahn Jahng
Journal:  J Korean Neurosurg Soc       Date:  2015-07-31

10.  In vivo compatibility of Dynesys(®) spinal implants: a case series of five retrieved periprosthetic tissue samples and corresponding implants.

Authors:  M Neukamp; C Roeder; S Y Veruva; D W MacDonald; S M Kurtz; M J Steinbeck
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2014-12-06       Impact factor: 3.134

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.