Literature DB >> 31970047

Endplate Deformation Due to Open and Strutted Intervertebral Devices.

Antonio Valdevit1, Anna Kedzierska2, Michelle B Gallagher3, Jennifer M Schneider3, Peter F Ullrich3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: There is an absence of work on vertebral endplate response to peripheral loading following disc removal and interbody placement. Endplate deflection into the interbody space may impart beneficial strain on the developing fusion mass, influencing bone formation and remodeling. The aim of this study was to verify endplate deformation due to peripheral loading using a custom transducer and to investigate whether endplate motion is inhibited by implant design.
METHODS: A total of 14 porcine (L4, L5) vertebrae were assigned to open or strutted implant designs. A custom transducer was placed on the endplate while 500 N was applied to the implant at 1 Hz for 500 cycles. Endplate motion was acquired for each time point and averaged among specimens of the same design. The rates and magnitudes of endplate deformation were compared between implant designs using unpaired t tests.
RESULTS: Peripheral loading of both implant designs resulted in endplate deflection into the interbody space. The open implant design demonstrated an increased rate and magnitude of endplate deformation when compared with strutted implants.
CONCLUSION: Interbody cage design directly influences the dynamic motion of the vertebral endplate during cyclic loading. A larger, faster deflection of the endplate could increase the strain rate, duration, and magnitude on the developing interbody fusion mass. These parameters of dynamic strain have been correlated with increased bone formation and remodeling. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Unimpeded endplate deformation in an open cage design could impart a strain pattern on the developing fusion mass that increases bone formation and remodeling, ultimately leading to a faster and stronger fusion. ©International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery 2019.

Entities:  

Keywords:  dynamic bone remodeling; dynamic strain; endplate deformation; implant; osteogenesis

Year:  2019        PMID: 31970047      PMCID: PMC6962008          DOI: 10.14444/6070

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Spine Surg        ISSN: 2211-4599


  25 in total

1.  Static and dynamic osteogenesis: two different types of bone formation.

Authors:  Marzia Ferretti; Carla Palumbo; Miranda Contri; Gastone Marotti
Journal:  Anat Embryol (Berl)       Date:  2002-09-25

2.  Changes in bone architecture during spinal fusion: three years follow-up and the role of cage stiffness.

Authors:  Theo H Smit; Ralph Müller; Martijn van Dijk; Paul I J M Wuisman
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2003-08-15       Impact factor: 3.468

3.  Static and dynamic osteogenesis.

Authors:  Gastone Marotti
Journal:  Ital J Anat Embryol       Date:  2010

4.  Intervertebral disc recovery after dynamic or static loading in vitro: is there a role for the endplate?

Authors:  A J van der Veen; J H van Dieën; A Nadort; B Stam; T H Smit
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2006-12-19       Impact factor: 2.712

5.  Regulation of bone mass by mechanical strain magnitude.

Authors:  C T Rubin; L E Lanyon
Journal:  Calcif Tissue Int       Date:  1985-07       Impact factor: 4.333

6.  Deformation of the vertebral end-plate under axial loading of the spine.

Authors:  P Brinckmann; W Frobin; E Hierholzer; M Horst
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1983 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 3.468

7.  In vitro biomechanical investigation of the stability and stress-shielding effect of lumbar interbody fusion devices.

Authors:  M Kanayama; B W Cunningham; C J Haggerty; K Abumi; K Kaneda; P C McAfee
Journal:  J Neurosurg       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 5.115

8.  Compressive properties of the cartilaginous end-plate of the baboon lumbar spine.

Authors:  L A Setton; W Zhu; M Weidenbaum; A Ratcliffe; V C Mow
Journal:  J Orthop Res       Date:  1993-03       Impact factor: 3.494

9.  National trends in revision spinal fusion in the USA: patient characteristics and complications.

Authors:  S S Rajaee; L E A Kanim; H W Bae
Journal:  Bone Joint J       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 5.082

10.  Mechanotransduction in bone: do bone cells act as sensors of fluid flow?

Authors:  C H Turner; M R Forwood; M W Otter
Journal:  FASEB J       Date:  1994-08       Impact factor: 5.191

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.