Literature DB >> 30060922

Mechanical performance of lumbar intervertebral body fusion devices: An analysis of data submitted to the Food and Drug Administration.

Jonathan H Peck1, Katherine D Kavlock2, Brent L Showalter2, Brittany M Ferrell2, Deepa G Peck3, Anton E Dmitriev4.   

Abstract

Lumbar intervertebral body fusion devices (L-IBFDs) are intended to provide stability to promote fusion in patients with a variety of lumbar pathologies. Different L-IBFD designs have been developed to accommodate various surgical approaches for lumbar interbody fusion procedures including anterior, lateral, posterior, and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions (ALIF, LLIF, PLIF, and TLIF, respectively). Due to design differences, there is a potential for mechanical performance differences between ALIF, LLIF, PLIF, and TLIF devices. To evaluate this, mechanical performance and device dimension data were collected from 124 Traditional 510(k) submissions to the FDA for L-IBFDs cleared for marketing from 2007 through 2016. From these submissions, mechanical test results were aggregated for seven commonly performed tests: static and dynamic axial compression, compression-shear, and torsion testing per ASTM F2077, and subsidence testing per ASTM F2267. The Kruskal-Wallis test and Wilcoxon signed-rank test were used to determine if device type (ALIF, LLIF, PLIF, TLIF) had a significant effect on mechanical performance parameters (static testing: stiffness and yield strength; dynamic testing: runout load; subsidence testing: stiffness [Kp]). Generally, ALIFs and LLIFs were found to be stiffer, stronger, and had higher subsidence resistance than PLIF and TLIF designs. These results are likely due to the larger footprints of the ALIF and LLIF devices. The relative mechanical performance and subsidence resistance can be considered when determining the appropriate surgical approach and implant for a given patient. Overall, the mechanical performance data presented here can be utilized for future L-IBFD development and design verification. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  ALIF; ASTM F2077; ASTM F2267; LLIF; Lumbar cage; Lumbar intervertebral body fusion device; Mechanical testing; PLIF; TLIF

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30060922     DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2018.07.022

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Biomech        ISSN: 0021-9290            Impact factor:   2.712


  5 in total

1.  Design considerations for piezoelectrically powered electrical stimulation: The balance between power generation and fatigue resistance.

Authors:  Ember D Krech; Leighton J LaPierre; Safakcan Tuncdemir; A Erkan Gurdal; Evan G Haas; Paul M Arnold; Elizabeth A Friis
Journal:  J Mech Behav Biomed Mater       Date:  2021-11-23

2.  Assessing the use of finite element analysis for mechanical performance evaluation of intervertebral body fusion devices.

Authors:  Andrew P Baumann; Thomas Graf; Jonathan H Peck; Anton E Dmitriev; Dezba Coughlan; Jeffrey C Lotz
Journal:  JOR Spine       Date:  2021-01-13

3.  Mechanical properties and fluid permeability of gyroid and diamond lattice structures for intervertebral devices: functional requirements and comparative analysis.

Authors:  Anatolie Timercan; Vadim Sheremetyev; Vladimir Brailovski
Journal:  Sci Technol Adv Mater       Date:  2021-04-21       Impact factor: 8.090

4.  Potential contribution of pedicle screw design to loosening rate in patients with degenerative diseases of the lumbar spine: An observational study.

Authors:  Andrey Bokov; Svetlana Pavlova; Anatoliy Bulkin; Alexandr Aleynik; Sergey Mlyavykh
Journal:  World J Orthop       Date:  2021-05-18

5.  Comparison of Incidence of Adjacent Segment Pathology between Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Treatments for Lumbosacral Junction.

Authors:  Po-Kuan Wu; Meng-Huang Wu; Cheng-Min Shih; Yen-Kuang Lin; Kun-Hui Chen; Chien-Chou Pan; Tsung-Jen Huang; Ching-Yu Lee; Cheng-Hung Lee
Journal:  Tomography       Date:  2021-12-02
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.