Literature DB >> 8272967

A carbon fiber implant to aid interbody lumbar fusion. Two-year clinical results in the first 26 patients.

J W Brantigan1, A D Steffee.   

Abstract

The success of posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) has been limited by mechanical and biologic deficiencies of the donor bone. The authors have designed a carbon fiber-reinforced polymer implant that separates the mechanical and biologic functions of PLIF. The cagelike implant provides an actual device designed to meet the mechanical requirements of PLIF and replaces the donor bone with autologous bone, the best possible bone for healing. The authors report 2-year follow-up results for their first 26 consecutive patients, 18 of whom were postsurgical failed backs with a total of 37 previous surgeries. At 2 years, 28 of 28 PLIF cage fusion levels and 6 of 11 (54.5%) allograft levels exhibited radiographic fusion, a statistically significant difference at P = 0.0002. Clinical results were excellent in 11/26, good in 10/26, fair in 3/26, and poor in 2/26. Fair and poor results were attributable to objective identifiable problems unrelated to the carbon cage. The carbon implant achieved successful fusion in 6/6 (100%) of followed patients treated for a failed ETO allograft interbody fusion. A prospective controlled multi-centered study is being initiated.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1993        PMID: 8272967     DOI: 10.1097/00007632-199310001-00030

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)        ISSN: 0362-2436            Impact factor:   3.468


  87 in total

1.  Anterior lumbar interbody fusion: does stable anterior fixation matter?

Authors:  S S Madan; J M Harley; N R Boeree
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2003-05-24       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Subsidence after anterior lumbar interbody fusion using paired stand-alone rectangular cages.

Authors:  Jae Young Choi; Kyeong Hoon Sung
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2005-04-21       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  Comparison of two interbody fusion cages for posterior lumbar interbody fusion in a cadaveric model.

Authors:  Shih-Tien Wang; Vijay K Goel; Chong-Yau Fu; Shinichiro Kubo; Woosung Choi; Chien-Lin Liu; Tain-Hsiung Chen
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2006-02-28       Impact factor: 3.075

4.  The interobserver-validated relevance of intervertebral spacer materials in MRI artifacting.

Authors:  T Ernstberger; G Heidrich; T Bruening; S Krefft; G Buchhorn; H M Klinger
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2006-02-07       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  Strategies of spinal fusion on osteoporotic spine.

Authors:  Sung Bae Park; Chun Kee Chung
Journal:  J Korean Neurosurg Soc       Date:  2011-06-30

Review 6.  Bioresorbable polymers: heading for a new generation of spinal cages.

Authors:  P I J M Wuisman; T H Smit
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2005-11-15       Impact factor: 3.134

7.  Direct pediculo-body fixation in cases of spondylolisthesis with advanced intervertebral disc degeneration.

Authors:  D Grob; T Humke; J Dvorak
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  1996       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 8.  [Interbody fusion procedures. Development from a historical perspective].

Authors:  Marcus Rickert; Michael Rauschmann; C Fleege; E Behrbalk; J Harms
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 1.087

9.  Comparison of plain radiographs with CT scan to evaluate interbody fusion following the use of titanium interbody cages and transpedicular instrumentation.

Authors:  Rajesh R Shah; Saeed Mohammed; Asif Saifuddin; Benjamin A Taylor
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2003-05-07       Impact factor: 3.134

10.  Allogenic versus autologous cancellous bone in lumbar segmental spondylodesis: a randomized prospective study.

Authors:  Michael Putzier; Patrick Strube; Julia F Funk; Christian Gross; Hans-Joachim Mönig; Carsten Perka; Axel Pruss
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-01-16       Impact factor: 3.134

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.