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
  • [21] Platelet-rich plasma in mono-segmental posterior lumbar interbody fusion
    Sys, J.
    Weyler, J.
    Van Der Zijden, T.
    Parizel, P.
    Michielsen, J.
    EUROPEAN SPINE JOURNAL, 2011, 20 (10) : 1650 - 1657
  • [22] Comparison between transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and posterior lumbar interbody fusion in treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis
    Han, Shao-Yu
    Xiao, Quan
    Zhu, Guo-Tai
    Dai, Jian
    Tang, Xiao-Ming
    Sun, Hai-Lang
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL MEDICINE, 2016, 9 (02): : 3932 - 3938
  • [23] Platelet-rich plasma in mono-segmental posterior lumbar interbody fusion
    J. Sys
    J. Weyler
    T. Van Der Zijden
    P. Parizel
    J. Michielsen
    European Spine Journal, 2011, 20 : 1650 - 1657
  • [24] Comparison between posterior lumbar interbody fusion and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in the management of lumbar spondylolisthesis
    Katuch, V
    Grega, R.
    Knorovsky, K.
    Banoci, J.
    Katuchova, J.
    Sasala, M.
    Ivankova, H.
    Kapralova, P.
    BRATISLAVA MEDICAL JOURNAL-BRATISLAVSKE LEKARSKE LISTY, 2021, 122 (09): : 653 - 656
  • [25] The posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) with cages in the treatment of segmental spinal instabilities.
    Diedrich, O
    Kraft, CN
    Bertram, R
    Wagner, U
    Schmitt, O
    ZEITSCHRIFT FUR ORTHOPADIE UND IHRE GRENZGEBIETE, 2000, 138 (02): : 162 - 168
  • [26] A Comparative Study of Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis
    Pawar, Abhijit Y.
    Hughes, Alexander P.
    Sama, Andrew A.
    Girardi, Federico P.
    Lebl, Darren R.
    Cammisa, Frank P.
    ASIAN SPINE JOURNAL, 2015, 9 (05) : 668 - 674
  • [27] Lumbar spinal fusions: A retrospective comparision of combined anterior/posterior fusion, posterior lumbar interbody fusion, and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.
    Wu, JA
    Laiwalla, UZ
    Wang, JC
    JOURNAL OF INVESTIGATIVE MEDICINE, 2006, 54 (01) : S117 - S117
  • [28] Mechanical testing of implants for lumbar interbody fusion
    Bader, RJ
    Steinhauser, E
    Rechl, H
    Mittelmeier, W
    Bertagnoli, R
    Gradinger, R
    ORTHOPADE, 2002, 31 (05): : 459 - +
  • [29] Metallic Implants Used in Lumbar Interbody Fusion
    Litak, Jakub
    Szymoniuk, Michal
    Czyzewski, Wojciech
    Hoffman, Zofia
    Litak, Joanna
    Sakwa, Leon
    Kamieniak, Piotr
    MATERIALS, 2022, 15 (10)
  • [30] Interbody metal implants ("cages") for lumbar fusion
    von Salis-Soglio, GF
    Scholz, R
    Seller, K
    ORTHOPADE, 2005, 34 (10): : 1033 - 1039