Literature DB >> 9089940

Threaded titanium cages for lumbar interbody fusions.

C D Ray1.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: This study evaluated safety, fusion success rate, and clinical outcome of a new lumbar interbody hollow, threaded titanium fusion cage in a multicenter, prospective 236-case program adhering to a United States Food and Drug Administration Investigational Device Exemption controlled protocol.
OBJECTIVES: The results were evaluated to demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of this new method to achieve solid lumbar interbody fusions. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Interbody fusions have certain distinct mechanical advantages over lateral or posterolateral ones. Autologous, cancellous bone is the preferred graft material, but is too soft to maintain the space during fusion without mechanical support. Various methods have been used in the past to maintain the graft integrity during fusion development.
METHODS: An initial pilot study began on 10 patients (followed for 84 months, average 80 months). Two years after that investigation started, the multicenter United States Food and Drug Administration Investigational Device Exemption study began, with cases followed for 28-46 months (average, 32). Ninety-six percent of the investigational Device Exemption study cases had severe, disabling back pain; in addition, 74% had major annular degeneration; 57% had herniations; 21% had osteophytes; and 43% had disc height reduced by greater than 10%. Forty-five percent of cases had previous spinal surgeries, and none were posterior lumbar interbody fusions. Titanium fusion cage pairs were screwed into bored and threaded, parallel intradiscal holes, and 3-8 ml autologous cancellous bone was packed inside each. Fusion success was judged by absence of motion on flexion-extension radiographs, absence of bone halo around the implants, and maintenance of visible bone inside the cages on Ferguson view radiographs.
RESULTS: Segments fused rapidly; the pilot study cases fused at 10 (91%) of 11 levels, with a reported 80% average clinical improvement. Ninety-six percent of the 208 2-year follow-up Investigational Device Exemption cases had fusion, and the Prolo socioeconomic/ functional improvement scale showed: 40% excellent, 25% good, 21% fair, and 14% poor results. Less than 1% of Investigational Device Exemption cases had complications that persisted beyond the average 5 days of hospitalization, and none were serious.
CONCLUSIONS: The Ray titanium fusion cage (Surgical Dynamics, Norwalk, CT) implant method has been found to be an effective, rapid, safe procedure for lumbar spine fusions, demonstrating a high fusion rate and clinical success with rare, serious, or permanent complications.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9089940     DOI: 10.1097/00007632-199703150-00019

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


  55 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.  Factors influencing stresses in the lumbar spine after the insertion of intervertebral cages: finite element analysis.

Authors:  Anne Polikeit; Stephen J Ferguson; Lutz P Nolte; Tracy E Orr
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2002-12-19       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  Spinous process plate (S-plate) fixation after posterior interbody fusion for lumbar canal stenosis due to spondylolisthesis.

Authors:  Masato Tomii; Yasunobu Itoh; Shinichi Numazawa; Kazuo Watanabe; Hiroshi Nakagawa
Journal:  Neurosurg Rev       Date:  2012-07-07       Impact factor: 3.042

4.  Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a safe technique with satisfactory three to five year results.

Authors:  Lars Hackenberg; Henry Halm; Viola Bullmann; Volker Vieth; Marc Schneider; Ulf Liljenqvist
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2005-01-26       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 5.  [Interbody metal implants ("cages") for lumbar fusion].

Authors:  G Freiherr von Salis-Soglio; R Scholz; K Seller
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 1.087

6.  Facet joint violation during pedicle screw insertion: a cadaveric study of the adult lumbosacral spine comparing the two pedicle screw insertion techniques.

Authors:  Kook Jin Chung; Seung Woo Suh; Keny Swapnil; Jae Hyuk Yang; Hae Ryong Song
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2006-09-30       Impact factor: 3.075

7.  Posterolateral versus circumferential instrumented fusion for monosegmental lumbar degenerative disc disease using an expandable cage.

Authors:  Panagiotis Korovessis; Thomas Repantis; Andreas Baikousis; Panagiotis Iliopoulos
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2011-10-21

8.  Expandable Interbody Spacers: A Two-Year Study Evaluating Radiologic and Clinical Outcomes With Patient-Reported Outcomes.

Authors:  Graham Mulvaney; Steve Monk; Jonathan D Clemente; Deborah Pfortmiller; Domagoj Coric
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2020-10-29

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.