Literature DB >> 9530797

Spine update lumbar interbody cages.

B K Weiner1, R D Fraser.   

Abstract

Interbody cage devices, used to assist interbody fusion, are rapidly gaining popularity in the surgical management of chronic low back pain. This update provides a structural classification of commonly used devices and assesses them against a set of clearly defined surgical goals, including ability to correct the existing mechanical deformation, ability to provide mechanical stability, ability to provide a suitable environment for arthrodesis, and ability to limit "built-in" morbidity. In addition, the materials used in the devices are examined regarding their biomechanical, biologic, and radiographic characteristics.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9530797     DOI: 10.1097/00007632-199803010-00020

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


  46 in total

1.  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

Review 2.  [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

3.  [Biodegradable cage. Osteointegration in spondylodesis of the sheep cervical spine].

Authors:  R Pflugmacher; T Eindorf; M Scholz; S Gumnior; C Krall; P Schleicher; N P Haas; F Kandziora
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 0.955

Review 4.  Radiological and clinical outcomes of novel Ti/PEEK combined spinal fusion cages: a systematic review and preclinical evaluation.

Authors:  Yusuf Assem; Ralph J Mobbs; Matthew H Pelletier; Kevin Phan; William R Walsh
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-12-15       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  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

6.  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

7.  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

8.  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

9.  Biomechanical study of a hat type cervical intervertebral fusion cage.

Authors:  Yu-Tong Gu; Lian-Shun Jia; Tong-Yi Chen
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2006-06-09       Impact factor: 3.075

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.