Literature DB >> 28334320

Interbody Spacer Material Properties and Design Conformity for Reducing Subsidence During Lumbar Interbody Fusion.

Lillian S Chatham1, Vikas V Patel2, Christopher M Yakacki1, R Dana Carpenter1.   

Abstract

There is a need to better understand the effects of intervertebral spacer material and design on the stress distribution in vertebral bodies and endplates to help reduce complications such as subsidence and improve outcomes following lumbar interbody fusion. The main objective of this study was to investigate the effects of spacer material on the stress and strain in the lumbar spine after interbody fusion with posterior instrumentation. A standard spacer was also compared with a custom-fit spacer, which conformed to the vertebral endplates, to determine if a custom fit would reduce stress on the endplates. A finite element (FE) model of the L4-L5 motion segment was developed from computed tomography (CT) images of a cadaveric lumbar spine. An interbody spacer, pedicle screws, and posterior rods were incorporated into the image-based model. The model was loaded in axial compression, and strain and stress were determined in the vertebra, spacer, and rods. Polyetheretherketone (PEEK), titanium, poly(para-phenylene) (PPP), and porous PPP (70% by volume) were used as the spacer material to quantify the effects on stress and strain in the system. Experimental testing of a cadaveric specimen was used to validate the model's results. There were no large differences in stress levels (<3%) at the bone-spacer interfaces and the rods when PEEK was used instead of titanium. Use of the porous PPP spacer produced an 8-15% decrease of stress at the bone-spacer interfaces and posterior rods. The custom-shaped spacer significantly decreased (>37%) the stress at the bone-spacer interfaces for all materials tested. A 28% decrease in stress was found in the posterior rods with the custom spacer. Of all the spacer materials tested with the custom spacer design, 70% porous PPP resulted in the lowest stress at the bone-spacer interfaces. The results show the potential for more compliant materials to reduce stress on the vertebral endplates postsurgery. The custom spacer provided a greater contact area between the spacer and bone, which distributed the stress more evenly, highlighting a possible strategy to decrease the risk of subsidence.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28334320      PMCID: PMC5446564          DOI: 10.1115/1.4036312

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


  29 in total

1.  Biomechanical analysis of cages for posterior lumbar interbody fusion.

Authors:  Alfonso Fantigrossi; Fabio Galbusera; Manuela Teresa Raimondi; Marco Sassi; Maurizio Fornari
Journal:  Med Eng Phys       Date:  2006-03-23       Impact factor: 2.242

2.  Mechanical evaluation of porous titanium (Ti6Al4V) structures with electron beam melting (EBM).

Authors:  Jayanthi Parthasarathy; Binil Starly; Shivakumar Raman; Andy Christensen
Journal:  J Mech Behav Biomed Mater       Date:  2009-10-22

3.  A comparison of fit of CNC-milled titanium and zirconia frameworks to implants.

Authors:  Jaafar Abduo; Karl Lyons; Neil Waddell; Vincent Bennani; Michael Swain
Journal:  Clin Implant Dent Relat Res       Date:  2011-03-17       Impact factor: 3.932

4.  Microstructure and compression properties of 3D powder printed Ti-6Al-4V scaffolds with designed porosity: Experimental and computational analysis.

Authors:  Srimanta Barui; Subhomoy Chatterjee; Sourav Mandal; Alok Kumar; Bikramjit Basu
Journal:  Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl       Date:  2016-09-21       Impact factor: 7.328

5.  Subsidence of polyetheretherketone cage after minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.

Authors:  Moon-Chan Kim; Hung-Tae Chung; Jae-Lim Cho; Dong-Jun Kim; Nam-Su Chung
Journal:  J Spinal Disord Tech       Date:  2013-04

6.  Comparison of disc space heights after anterior lumbar interbody fusion.

Authors:  S Dennis; R Watkins; S Landaker; W Dillin; D Springer
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1989-08       Impact factor: 3.468

7.  An instrumented implant for vertebral body replacement that measures loads in the anterior spinal column.

Authors:  Antonius Rohlmann; Udo Gabel; Friedmar Graichen; Alwina Bender; Georg Bergmann
Journal:  Med Eng Phys       Date:  2006-08-22       Impact factor: 2.242

8.  An analysis of the unconfined compression of articular cartilage.

Authors:  C G Armstrong; W M Lai; V C Mow
Journal:  J Biomech Eng       Date:  1984-05       Impact factor: 2.097

9.  High-strength, surface-porous polyether-ether-ketone for load-bearing orthopedic implants.

Authors:  Nathan T Evans; F Brennan Torstrick; Christopher S D Lee; Kenneth M Dupont; David L Safranski; W Allen Chang; Annie E Macedo; Angela S P Lin; Jennifer M Boothby; Daniel C Whittingslow; Robert A Carson; Robert E Guldberg; Ken Gall
Journal:  Acta Biomater       Date:  2014-11-24       Impact factor: 8.947

10.  Anterior lumbar fusion with paired BAK standard and paired BAK Proximity cages: subsidence incidence, subsidence factors, and clinical outcome.

Authors:  William J Beutler; Walter C Peppelman
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2003 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 4.166

View more
  8 in total

1.  Current Concepts of Contemporary Expandable Lumbar Interbody Fusion Cage Designs, Part 1: An Editorial on Their Biomechanical Characteristics.

Authors:  Boyle C Cheng; Isaac Swink; Rachelle Yusufbekov; Michele Birgelen; Lisa Ferrara; Kai-Uwe Lewandrowski; Domagoj Coric
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2020-10-29

2.  Biological evaluation and finite-element modeling of porous poly(para-phenylene) for orthopaedic implants.

Authors:  Hyunhee Ahn; Ravi R Patel; Anthony J Hoyt; Angela S P Lin; F Brennan Torstrick; Robert E Guldberg; Carl P Frick; R Dana Carpenter; Christopher M Yakacki; Nick J Willett
Journal:  Acta Biomater       Date:  2018-03-18       Impact factor: 8.947

3.  Current Concepts of Contemporary Expandable Lumbar Interbody Fusion Cage Designs, Part 2: Feasibility Assessment of an Endplate Conforming Bidirectional Expandable Interbody Cage.

Authors:  Boyle C Cheng; Isaac Swink; Rachelle Yusufbekov; Michele Birgelen; Lisa Ferrara; Domagoj Coric
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2020-10-29

4.  Effect of porous orthopaedic implant material and structure on load sharing with simulated bone ingrowth: A finite element analysis comparing titanium and PEEK.

Authors:  R Dana Carpenter; Brett S Klosterhoff; F Brennan Torstrick; Kevin T Foley; J Kenneth Burkus; Christopher S D Lee; Ken Gall; Robert E Guldberg; David L Safranski
Journal:  J Mech Behav Biomed Mater       Date:  2018-04

5.  Novel Titanium Cages for Minimally Invasive Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion: First Assessment of Subsidence.

Authors:  Paul R Krafft; Brooks Osburn; Andrew C Vivas; Gautam Rao; Puya Alikhani
Journal:  Spine Surg Relat Res       Date:  2019-12-20

6.  Mesh Ti6Al4V Material Manufactured by Selective Laser Melting (SLM) as a Promising Intervertebral Fusion Cage.

Authors:  Agata Przekora; Paulina Kazimierczak; Michal Wojcik; Emil Chodorski; Jacek Kropiwnicki
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2022-04-03       Impact factor: 5.923

7.  Evaluation of the contact surface between vertebral endplate and 3D printed patient-specific cage vs commercial cage.

Authors:  Renan Jose Rodrigues Fernandes; Aaron Gee; Andrew James Kanawati; Fawaz Siddiqi; Parham Rasoulinejad; Radovan Zdero; Christopher Stewart Bailey
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-07-22       Impact factor: 4.996

8.  Rapid Personalised Virtual Planning and On-Demand Surgery for Acute Spinal Trauma Using 3D-Printing, Biomodelling and Patient-Specific Implant Manufacture.

Authors:  Ralph Jasper Mobbs; William C H Parr; Christopher Huang; Tajrian Amin
Journal:  J Pers Med       Date:  2022-06-18
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.