Segmental stability and compressive strength of posterior lumbar interbody fusion implants

被引:51
|
作者
Tsantrizos, A
Baramki, HG
Zeidman, S
Steffen, T
机构
[1] McGill Univ, Div Orthopaed Surg, Orthopaed Res Lab, Montreal, PQ H3A 1A1, Canada
[2] Uniformed Serv Univ Hlth Sci, Bethesda, MD 20814 USA
关键词
interbody fusion; lumbar spine; biomechanics; implant; bone allograft; initial stability; compressive strength;
D O I
10.1097/00007632-200008010-00007
中图分类号
R74 [神经病学与精神病学];
学科分类号
摘要
Study Design. Human cadaveric study on initial segmental stability and compressive strength of posterior lumbar interbody fusion implants. Objectives. To compare the initial segmental stability and compressive strength of a posterior lumbar interbody fusion construct using a new cortical bone spacer machined from allograft to that of titanium threaded and nonthreaded posterior lumbar interbody fusion cages, tested as stand-alone and with supplemental pedicle screw fixation. Summary of Background Data. Cages were introduced to overcome the limitations of conventional allografts. Radiodense cage materials impede radiographic assessment of the fusion, however, and may cause stress shielding of the graft. Methods. Multisegmental specimens were tested intact, with posterior lumbar interbody fusion implants inserted into the L4/L5 interbody space and with supplemental pedicle screw fixation. Three posterior lumbar interbody fusion implant constructs (Ray Threaded Fusion Cage, Contact Fusion Cage, and PLIF Allograft Spacer) were tested nondestructively in axial rotation, flexion-extension, and lateral bending. The implant-specimen constructs then were isolated and compressed to failure. Changes in the neutral zone, range of motion, yield strength, and ultimate compressive strength were analyzed. Results. None of the stand-alone implant constructs reduced the neutral zone. Supplemental pedicle screw fixation decreased the neutral zone in flexion-extension and lateral bending. Stand-alone implant constructs decreased the range of motion in flexion and lateral bending. Differences in the range of motion between stand-alone cage constructs were found in flexion and extension (marginally significant). Supplemental posterior fixation further decreased the range of motion in all loading directions with no differences between implant constructs. The Contact Fusion Cage and PLIF Allograft Spacer constructs had a higher ultimate compressive strength than the Ray Threaded Fusion Cage. Conclusions. The biomechanical data did not suggest any implant construct to behave superiorly either as a stand-alone or with supplemental posterior fixation. The PLIF Allograph Spacer is biomechanically equivalent to titanium cages but is devoid of the deficiencies associated with other cage technologies. Therefore, the PLIF Allograft Spacer is a valid alternative to conventional cages.
引用
收藏
页码:1899 / 1907
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [11] Clinical Comparison of Endoscopic Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Open Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Treating Lumbar Spondylolisthesis
    Yang, Lihui
    Du, Peng
    Zang, Lei
    An, Likun
    Liu, Wei
    Li, Jian
    Diao, Wenbo
    Gao, Jian
    Yan, Ming
    Zhu, Wenyi
    Yuan, Shuo
    Fan, Ning
    CLINICAL SPINE SURGERY, 2025, 38 (03): : E212 - E220
  • [12] Comparison of Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion Combined with Posterior Decompression (OLIF-PD) and Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion (PLIF) in the Treatment of Adjacent Segmental Disease(ASD)
    Zhang, Bin
    Hu, Yuan
    Kong, Qingquan
    Feng, Pin
    Liu, Junlin
    Ma, Junsong
    JOURNAL OF PERSONALIZED MEDICINE, 2023, 13 (02):
  • [13] Advances in posterior lumbar interbody fusion
    Brislin, B
    Vaccaro, AR
    ORTHOPEDIC CLINICS OF NORTH AMERICA, 2002, 33 (02) : 367 - +
  • [14] POSTERIOR LUMBAR INTERBODY FUSION AND PLATES
    STEFFEE, AD
    SITKOWSKI, DJ
    CLINICAL ORTHOPAEDICS AND RELATED RESEARCH, 1988, (227) : 99 - 102
  • [15] Posterior and anterior lumbar interbody fusion
    Madhu, Tiruveedhula S.
    CURRENT ORTHOPAEDICS, 2008, 22 (06): : 406 - 413
  • [16] Posterior lumbar interbody fusion - Comment
    Alday, R
    NEUROCIRUGIA, 2001, 12 (05): : 455 - 455
  • [17] Posterior lumbar interbody fusion - Response
    Okuda, Shinya
    JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY-SPINE, 2007, 6 (02) : 195 - 195
  • [18] THE FAILED POSTERIOR LUMBAR INTERBODY FUSION
    WETZEL, FT
    LAROCCA, H
    SPINE, 1991, 16 (07) : 839 - 845
  • [19] POSTERIOR LUMBAR INTERBODY FUSION UPDATED
    CLOWARD, RB
    CLINICAL ORTHOPAEDICS AND RELATED RESEARCH, 1985, (193) : 16 - 19
  • [20] Predictors of segmental lumbar lordosis following midline posterior (transforaminal) lumbar interbody fusion: Does interbody device type matter?
    Crawford, Charles
    Epperson, Thomas
    Gum, Jeffrey
    Owens, R. Kirk
    Djurasovic, Mladen
    Glassman, Steven D.
    Carreon, Leah Y.
    NORTH AMERICAN SPINE SOCIETY JOURNAL, 2022, 11