Literature DB >> 8724086

Biomechanical analysis of thoracolumbar interbody constructs. How important is the endplate?

J P Hollowell1, D G Vollmer, C R Wilson, F A Pintar, N Yoganandan.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: A biomechanical study of human cadaveric thoracic vertebral bodies was conducted using several anterior fusion options subjected to axial loads. This study emphasized the contribution of the endplate to resistance of graft subsidence.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the importance of the vertebral endplate in resisting subsidence of various constructs into the vertebral body; the relative efficacy of potential alternative graft constructs such as iliac crest, ribs, humerus, and titanium mesh cage; and the importance of bone mineral content, vertebral level, and cross-sectional graft area on construct subsidence. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: As the fixation length of anterior and posterior spinal constructs is reduced, load sharing of the anterior column has become more important to reduce failure of the shorter devices. Several alternative graft constructs and surgical techniques have been used for reconstruction of the anterior column. There exist little comparative data as to whether any of these constructs are superior and whether the vertebral endplate contributes significantly to the integrity of the construct.
METHODS: Sixty-three isolated human cadaveric vertebral bodies from T3 to T12 were used to test seven different constructs in direct axial load onto prepared endplates with an electrohydraulic testing device. These constructs were: 1) titanium mesh cage (17 x 22 mm) on intact endplate, 2) C-shaped humerus on intact endplate, 3) tricorticated iliac graft in "tee configuration" on intact endplate, 4) tricorticated iliac graft in cancellous trough, 5) triple rib strut graft, 6) single rib on endplate, and 7) single rib on cancellous body. Dual X-ray absorptiometry assessment of bone mineral content was performed. A uniaxial load was applied with force and displacement data collected to determine maximal load to "failure" of the vertebral body.
RESULTS: Preservation of vertebral endplate did not significantly increase the resistance to graft subsidence. The titanium cage construct provided the greatest resistance to axial load.
CONCLUSIONS: Preservation of the vertebral endplate may not offer a significant biomechanical advantage in reconstructing the anterior column. Several alternative constructs are mechanically equivalent.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8724086     DOI: 10.1097/00007632-199605010-00007

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


  24 in total

1.  The importance of the endplate for interbody cages in the lumbar spine.

Authors:  Anne Polikeit; Stephen J Ferguson; Lutz P Nolte; Tracy E Orr
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2003-05-29       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Variation of endplate thickness in the cervical spine.

Authors:  T Pitzen; B Schmitz; T Georg; D Barbier; T Beuter; W I Steudel; W Reith
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2004-01-17       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 3.  [Vertebral body replacement in spine surgery].

Authors:  F Kandziora; K J Schnake; C K Klostermann; N P Haas
Journal:  Unfallchirurg       Date:  2004-05       Impact factor: 1.000

4.  Accuracy of DXA scanning of the thoracic spine: cadaveric studies comparing BMC, areal BMD and geometric estimates of volumetric BMD against ash weight and CT measures of bone volume.

Authors:  Meena M Sran; Karim M Khan; Kathy Keiver; Jason B Chew; Heather A McKay; Thomas R Oxland
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2004-12-23       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  Experimental study of the participation of the vertebral endplate in the integration of bone grafts.

Authors:  M R Porto Filho; M T Pastorello; H L A Defino
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2005-04-21       Impact factor: 3.134

6.  Primary stability of anterior lumbar stabilization: interdependence of implant type and endplate retention or removal.

Authors:  Christian H Flamme; Nadine von der Heide; Caroline Heymann; Christof Hurschler
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2005-08-10       Impact factor: 3.134

7.  [An improved vertebral body replacement for the thoracolumbar spine. A biomechanical in vitro test on human lumbar vertebral bodies].

Authors:  M Reinhold; W Schmölz; F Canto; D Krappinger; M Blauth; C Knop
Journal:  Unfallchirurg       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 1.000

8.  Correlation of cervical endplate strength with CT measured subchondral bone density.

Authors:  Nathaniel R Ordway; Yen-Mou Lu; Xingkai Zhang; Chin-Chang Cheng; Huang Fang; Amir H Fayyazi
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2007-08-22       Impact factor: 3.134

9.  The influence of cage positioning and cage type on cage migration and fusion rates in patients with monosegmental posterior lumbar interbody fusion and posterior fixation.

Authors:  Alexander Abbushi; Mario Cabraja; Ulrich-Wilhelm Thomale; Christian Woiciechowsky; Stefan Nikolaus Kroppenstedt
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-05-28       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.