Literature DB >> 9278922

Multidirectional stabilizing potential of BAK interbody spinal fusion system for anterior surgery.

K Nibu1, M M Panjabi, T Oxland, J Cholewicki.   

Abstract

Improvement in laparoscopic surgery requires spinal-fusion devices appropriately designed for this technique. The BAK interbody fusion device (Spine Tech Inc., Minneapolis, MN, U.S.A.), which consists of two titanium screw cages, meets this requirement. Multidirectional stabilizing potential of this device was investigated by using an in vitro human cadaveric model. Four fresh-frozen human lumbosacral spine specimens (L5-S1) were used. The flexibility test consisted of applying six pure moments (flexion, extension, bilateral axial torques, and lateral bending moments) and measuring the ensuing three-dimensional motion. Moments were applied in four load steps: 0, 2.5, 5.0, 7.5, and 10.0 Nm, and for three load and unload cycles. Motion of the top vertebra was recorded during the third load cycle by using a three-dimensional optoelectronic motion-measurement system. The motion parameters studied were the ranges of motion (ROM) and the neutral zone (NZ). Comparing the ROM of the intact specimen and after the fixation, all motions except extension were reduced significantly (p < 0.005). Average percentage decrease in ROM were 45.8% in flexion, 40.4% in axial rotation, and 65.6% in lateral bending. The only significant changes in NZ were a 255.7% increase in extension, a 90.9% increase in axial rotation, and a 70.8% decrease in lateral bending. This biomechanical study revealed that the BAK system provided decreases in ROM in all directions except in extension. The increased NZ in extension and axial rotation is most likely related to the positioning of the implant. Because these implants were placed from the anterior, damage to anterior annulus and anterior longitudinal ligament is inevitable. For clinical relevance, the patients undergoing this surgical procedure should avoid extension motions.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9278922

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Spinal Disord        ISSN: 0895-0385


  7 in total

Review 1.  [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

2.  A history of spine biomechanics. Focus on 20th century progress.

Authors:  T R Oxland
Journal:  Unfallchirurg       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 1.000

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.  StabilimaxNZ) versus simulated fusion: evaluation of adjacent-level effects.

Authors:  Manohar M Panjabi; Gweneth Henderson; Yue James; Jens Peter Timm
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2007-10-09       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  Evolution of Design of Interbody Cages for Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion.

Authors:  Kevin Phan; Ralph J Mobbs
Journal:  Orthop Surg       Date:  2016-08       Impact factor: 2.071

6.  The in vitro stabilising effect of polyetheretherketone cages versus a titanium cage of similar design for anterior lumbar interbody fusion.

Authors:  M Spruit; R G Falk; L Beckmann; T Steffen; R M Castelein
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2005-08-17       Impact factor: 3.134

7.  Biomechanical effects of polyaxial pedicle screw fixation on the lumbosacral segments with an anterior interbody cage support.

Authors:  Shih-Hao Chen; Ruey Mo Lin; Hsiang-Ho Chen; Kai-Jow Tsai
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2007-03-10       Impact factor: 2.362

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.