Literature DB >> 9629937

Compressive strength of interbody cages in the lumbar spine: the effect of cage shape, posterior instrumentation and bone density.

B Jost1, P A Cripton, T Lund, T R Oxland, K Lippuner, P Jaeger, L P Nolte.   

Abstract

One goal of interbody fusion is to increase the height of the degenerated disc space. Interbody cages in particular have been promoted with the claim that they can maintain the disc space better than other methods. There are many factors that can affect the disc height maintenance, including graft or cage design, the quality of the surrounding bone and the presence of supplementary posterior fixation. The present study is an in vitro biomechanical investigation of the compressive behaviour of three different interbody cage designs in a human cadaveric model. The effect of bone density and posterior instrumentation were assessed. Thirty-six lumbar functional spinal units were instrumented with one of three interbody cages: (1) a porous titanium implant with endplate fit (Stratec), (2) a porous, rectangular carbon-fibre implant (Brantigan) and (3) a porous, cylindrical threaded implant (Ray). Posterior instrumentation (USS) was applied to half of the specimens. All specimens were subjected to axial compression displacement until failure. Correlations between both the failure load and the load at 3 mm displacement with the bone density measurements were observed. Neither the cage design nor the presence of posterior instrumentation had a significant effect on the failure load. The loads at 3 mm were slightly less for the Stratec cage, implying lower axial stiffness, but were not different with posterior instrumentation. The large range of observed failure loads overlaps the potential in vivo compressive loads, implying that failure of the bone-implant interface may occur clinically. Preoperative measurements of bone density may be an effective tool to predict settling around interbody cages.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9629937      PMCID: PMC3611229          DOI: 10.1007/s005860050043

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Spine J        ISSN: 0940-6719            Impact factor:   3.134


  27 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

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.  [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

5.  Factors affecting the interface of cervical spine facet screws placed in the technique by Roy-Camille et al.

Authors:  T R Pitzen; S Zenner; D Barbier; T Georg; W I Steudel
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2004-03-27       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 6.  A systematic review of the use of expandable cages in the cervical spine.

Authors:  Benjamin D Elder; Sheng-Fu Lo; Thomas A Kosztowski; C Rory Goodwin; Ioan A Lina; John E Locke; Timothy F Witham
Journal:  Neurosurg Rev       Date:  2015-07-28       Impact factor: 3.042

7.  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

8.  [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

9.  Lumbar interbody fusion: a parametric investigation of a novel cage design with and without posterior instrumentation.

Authors:  Fabio Galbusera; Hendrik Schmidt; Hans-Joachim Wilke
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-09-15       Impact factor: 3.134

10.  Traumatic dislocation of the S1 polyaxial pedicle screw head: a case report.

Authors:  Pieter N B Du Plessis; Bernard P H Lau; Hwee Weng Dennis Hey
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2017-03
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.