Literature DB >> 24389961

Biomechanical evaluation of an interfacet joint decompression and stabilization system.

Jeremi M Leasure, Jenni Buckley.   

Abstract

A majority of the middle-aged population exhibit cervical spondylosis that may require decompression and fusion of the affected level. Minimally invasive cervical fusion is an attractive option for decreasing operative time, morbidity, and mortality rates. A novel interfacet joint spacer (DTRAX facet screw system, Providence Medical) promises minimally invasive deployment resulting in decompression of the neuroforamen and interfacet fusion. The present study investigates the effectiveness of the device in minimizing intervertebral motion to promote fusion, decompression of the nerve root during bending activity, and performance of the implant to adhere to anatomy during repeated bending loads. We observed flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation resonant overshoot mode (ROM) in cadaver models of c-spine treated with the interfacet joint spacer (FJ spacer) as stand-alone and supplementing anterior plating. The FJ spacer was deployed bilaterally at single levels. Specimens were placed at the limit of ROM in flexion, extension, axial bending, and lateral bending. 3D images of the foramen were taken and postprocessed to quantify changes in foraminal area. Stand-alone spacer specimens were subjected to 30,000 cycles at 2 Hz of nonsimultaneous flexion-extension and lateral bending under compressive load and X-ray imaged at regular cycle intervals for quantitative measurements of device loosening. The stand-alone FJ spacer increased specimen stiffness in all directions except extension. 86% of all deployments resulted in some level of foraminal distraction. The rate of effective distraction was maintained in flexed, extended, and axially rotated postures. Two specimens demonstrated no detectable implant loosening (<0.25 mm). Three showed unilateral subclinical loosening (0.4 mm maximum), and one had subclinical loosening bilaterally (0.5 mm maximum). Results of our study are comparable to previous investigations into the stiffness of other stand-alone minimally invasive technologies. The FJ spacer system effectively increased stiffness of the affected level comparable to predicate systems. Results of this study indicate the FJ spacer increases foraminal area in the cervical spine, and decompression is maintained during bending activities. Clinical studies will be necessary to determine whether the magnitude of decompression observed in this cadaveric study will effectively treat cervical radiculopathy; however, results of this study, taken in context of successful decompression treatments in the lumbar spine, are promising for the continued development of this product. Results of this biomechanical study are encouraging for the continued investigation of this device in animal and clinical trials, as they suggest the device is well fixated and mechanically competent.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24389961      PMCID: PMC4056421          DOI: 10.1115/1.4026363

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Biomech Eng        ISSN: 0148-0731            Impact factor:   2.097


  32 in total

1.  Cervical transfacet versus lateral mass screws: a biomechanical comparison.

Authors:  J W Klekamp; J L Ugbo; J G Heller; W C Hutton
Journal:  J Spinal Disord       Date:  2000-12

2.  Load-carrying capacity of the human cervical spine in compression is increased under a follower load.

Authors:  A G Patwardhan; R M Havey; A J Ghanayem; H Diener; K P Meade; B Dunlap; S D Hodges
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2000-06-15       Impact factor: 3.468

3.  In vitro biomechanical analysis of three anterior thoracolumbar implants.

Authors:  P W Hitchon; V K Goel; T N Rogge; J C Torner; A P Dooris; J S Drake; S J Yang; K Totoribe
Journal:  J Neurosurg       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 5.115

4.  Neutral zone and range of motion in the spine are greater with stepwise loading than with a continuous loading protocol. An in vitro porcine investigation.

Authors:  Darrell J Goertzen; Chris Lane; Thomas R Oxland
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 2.712

5.  Anterior thigh compartment syndrome and local myonecrosis after posterior spine surgery on a Jackson table.

Authors:  Faiz U Ahmad; Karthik Madhavan; Ryan Trombly; Allan D Levi
Journal:  World Neurosurg       Date:  2012-04-03       Impact factor: 2.104

6.  The anatomic relation among the nerve roots, intervertebral foramina, and intervertebral discs of the cervical spine.

Authors:  N Tanaka; Y Fujimoto; H S An; Y Ikuta; M Yasuda
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2000-02-01       Impact factor: 3.468

7.  Biomechanical pullout strength and stability of the cervical artificial pedicle screw.

Authors:  Alison H Barnes; Johnny A Eguizabal; Frank L Acosta; Jeffrey C Lotz; Jenni M Buckley; Christopher P Ames
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2009-01-01       Impact factor: 3.468

8.  Biomechanical differences between transfacet and lateral mass screw-rod constructs for multilevel posterior cervical spine stabilization.

Authors:  Firoz Miyanji; Andrew Mahar; Richard Oka; Peter Newton
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2008-11-01       Impact factor: 3.468

9.  Presymptomatic spondylotic cervical cord compression.

Authors:  Josef Bednarik; Zdenek Kadanka; Ladislav Dusek; Oldrich Novotny; Dagmar Surelova; Igor Urbanek; Boleslav Prokes
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2004-10-15       Impact factor: 3.468

10.  Factors predicting excellent outcome of percutaneous cervical discectomy: analysis of 111 consecutive cases.

Authors:  Y Ahn; S H Lee; S C Lee; S W Shin; S E Chung
Journal:  Neuroradiology       Date:  2004-04-22       Impact factor: 2.804

View more
  7 in total

1.  Cervical cages placed bilaterally in the facet joints from a posterior approach significantly increase foraminal area.

Authors:  Kris Siemionow; Piotr Janusz; Pawel Glowka
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2016-02-11       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Effectiveness of cervical zero profile integrated cage with and without supplemental posterior Interfacet stabilization.

Authors:  Robert M Havey; Kenneth R Blank; Saeed Khayatzadeh; Muturi G Muriuki; Suguna Pappu; Avinash G Patwardhan
Journal:  Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)       Date:  2020-06-10       Impact factor: 2.063

3.  Unilateral spacer distraction of the subaxial cervical facet joint for the treatment of fixed coronal malalignment of the craniovertebral junction.

Authors:  Luis E Carelli; Alderico Girão; Ígor Cechin; Juan P Cabrera
Journal:  J Craniovertebr Junction Spine       Date:  2022-06-13

4.  Length of stay associated with posterior cervical fusion with intervertebral cages: experience from a device registry.

Authors:  Kris Siemionow; William Smith; Mark Gillespy; Bruce M McCormack; Mukund I Gundanna; Jon E Block
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2018-06

5.  Bilateral posterior cervical cages provide biomechanical stability: assessment of stand-alone and supplemental fixation for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion.

Authors:  Leonard I Voronov; Krzysztof B Siemionow; Robert M Havey; Gerard Carandang; Frank M Phillips; Avinash G Patwardhan
Journal:  Med Devices (Auckl)       Date:  2016-07-13

6.  Biomechanics of Circumferential Cervical Fixation Using Posterior Facet Cages: A Cadaveric Study.

Authors:  Bernardo de Andrada Pereira; Joshua E Heller; Jennifer N Lehrman; Anna G U Sawa; Brian P Kelly
Journal:  Neurospine       Date:  2021-03-31

7.  Biomechanical evaluation of DTRAX(®) posterior cervical cage stabilization with and without lateral mass fixation.

Authors:  Leonard I Voronov; Krzysztof B Siemionow; Robert M Havey; Gerard Carandang; Avinash G Patwardhan
Journal:  Med Devices (Auckl)       Date:  2016-08-23
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.