Andrew Frost1, Elmanzour Bagouri, Mark Brown, Vinay Jasani. 1. Spine Surgical Unit, Department of Trauma and Orthopaedics, University Hospital North Staffordshire, Newcastle Road, Stoke on Trent, ST4 6QG, UK. frost.andrew@ymail.com
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Report of case series. OBJECTIVE: To report a problem with bioabsorbable poly-L-lactide-co-D, L-lactide, PLDLLA, posterior lumbar instrumented fusion (PLIF) cage implants. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Synthetic bioabsorbable implants have recently been introduced to spinal surgery and their indications and applications are still being explored. There is evidence that the use of bioabsorbable cages may be of benefit in interbody spinal fusion. METHODS: We present a case series of nine patients who have undergone PLIF with bioabsorbable cages in the lumbar spine. RESULTS: At follow-up over at least 1 year, four of these patients were found to have osteolysis around the implant on CT scanning. One of these patients underwent an operation to remove the cage and histology sent during surgery suggested that the implant had caused the bone loss and there was no evidence of infection. Another patient had ongoing pain in relation to the lysis, while the other two patients with lysis remained asymptomatic. CONCLUSIONS: PLDLLA cage, which has high osteolytic nature, is considered not suitable as a fusion cage.
STUDY DESIGN: Report of case series. OBJECTIVE: To report a problem with bioabsorbable poly-L-lactide-co-D, L-lactide, PLDLLA, posterior lumbar instrumented fusion (PLIF) cage implants. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Synthetic bioabsorbable implants have recently been introduced to spinal surgery and their indications and applications are still being explored. There is evidence that the use of bioabsorbable cages may be of benefit in interbody spinal fusion. METHODS: We present a case series of nine patients who have undergone PLIF with bioabsorbable cages in the lumbar spine. RESULTS: At follow-up over at least 1 year, four of these patients were found to have osteolysis around the implant on CT scanning. One of these patients underwent an operation to remove the cage and histology sent during surgery suggested that the implant had caused the bone loss and there was no evidence of infection. Another patient had ongoing pain in relation to the lysis, while the other two patients with lysis remained asymptomatic. CONCLUSIONS: PLDLLA cage, which has high osteolytic nature, is considered not suitable as a fusion cage.
Authors: S M David; H E Gruber; R A Meyer; T Murakami; O B Tabor; B A Howard; J M Wozney; E N Hanley Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 1999-10-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Frank Kandziora; Robert Pflugmacher; Matti Scholz; Tanja Eindorf; Klaus J Schnake; Norbert P Haas Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2004-09-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Matthijs R Krijnen; Theo H Smit; Gustav J Strijkers; Klaas Nicolay; Petra J W Pouwels; Paul I J M Wuisman Journal: Neurosurg Focus Date: 2004-03-15 Impact factor: 4.047
Authors: Jeffrey M Toth; Bradley T Estes; Mei Wang; Howard B Seim; Jeffrey L Scifert; A Simon Turner; G Bryan Cornwall Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2002-11 Impact factor: 5.115