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

被引:5
|
作者
Jost B. [1 ]
Cripton P.A. [1 ]
Lund T. [1 ]
Oxland T.R. [1 ]
Lippuner K. [2 ]
Jaeger Ph. [2 ]
Nolte L.-P. [1 ]
机构
[1] M.E. Müller Inst. for Biomech., University of Bern, Murtenstrasse 35
[2] Polyclinic of Medicine, University of Bern
关键词
Biomechanics; Compression; Fusion; Implant; Interbody; Posterior lumbar intervertebral fusion; Spine;
D O I
10.1007/s005860050043
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
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.
引用
收藏
页码:132 / 141
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Resistance of the lumbar spine against axial compression forces after implantation of three different posterior lumbar interbody cages
    Krammer, M
    Dietl, R
    Lumenta, CB
    Kettler, A
    Wilke, HJ
    Büttner, A
    Claes, L
    ACTA NEUROCHIRURGICA, 2001, 143 (12) : 1217 - 1222
  • [22] Degenerative conditions of the lumbar spine treated with intervertebral titanium cages and posterior instrumentation for circumferential fusion
    Whitecloud, TS
    Castro, FP
    Brinker, MR
    Hartzog, CW
    Ricciardi, JE
    Hill, C
    JOURNAL OF SPINAL DISORDERS, 1998, 11 (06): : 479 - 486
  • [23] Resistance of the Lumbar Spine Against Axial Compression Forces after Implantation of Three Different Posterior Lumbar Interbody Cages
    M. Krammer
    R. Dietl
    C. B. Lumenta
    A. Kettler
    H.-J. Wilke
    A. Büttner
    L. Claes
    Acta Neurochirurgica, 2001, 143 : 1217 - 1222
  • [24] Prediction of mechanical behaviors at interfaces between bone and two interbody cages of lumbar spine segments
    Kim, Y
    SPINE, 2001, 26 (13) : 1437 - 1442
  • [25] Lumbar sagittal contour after posterior interbody fusion -: Threaded devices alone versus vertical cages plus posterior instrumentation
    Klemme, WR
    Owens, BD
    Dhawan, A
    Zeidman, S
    Polly, DW
    SPINE, 2001, 26 (05) : 534 - 537
  • [26] Biomechanical Evaluation of a Novel Autogenous Bone Interbody Fusion Cage for Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion in a Cadaveric Model
    Wang, Le
    Malone, Kyle T.
    Huang, Hai
    Zhang, Zhenshan
    Zhang, Zhi
    Zhang, Liang
    Li, Jian
    SPINE, 2014, 39 (11) : E684 - E692
  • [27] Radiographic and Patient-Reported Outcomes in Anteriorly Placed Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Cage Versus Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion With Posterior Instrumentation
    Lee, Yunsoo
    Heard, Jeremy C.
    McCurdy, Michael A.
    Lambrechts, Mark J.
    Fras, Sebastian I.
    Purtill, William
    Millar, Ben
    Kolowrat, Samantha
    Issa, Tariq Z.
    D'Antonio, Nicholas D.
    Rihn, Jeffrey A.
    Kurd, Mark F.
    Kaye, Ian David
    Canseco, Jose A.
    Vaccaro, Alexander R.
    Hilibrand, Alan S.
    Kepler, Christopher K.
    Schroeder, Gregory D.
    SPINE, 2024, 49 (15) : 1078 - 1084
  • [28] Biomechanical analysis of an expandable lateral cage and a static transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion cage with posterior instrumentation in an in vitro spondylolisthesis model
    Mantell, Matthew
    Cyriac, Mathew
    Haines, Colin M.
    Gudipally, Manasa
    O'Brien, Joseph R.
    JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY-SPINE, 2016, 24 (01) : 32 - 38
  • [29] Stabilizing effect of posterior lumbar interbody fusion cages before and after cyclic loading
    Kettler, A
    Wilke, HJ
    Dietl, R
    Krammer, M
    Lumeta, C
    Claes, L
    JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY, 2000, 92 (01) : 87 - 92
  • [30] In vitro stabilizing effect of a transforaminal compared with two posterior lumbar interbody fusion cages
    Kettler, A
    Schmoelz, W
    Kast, E
    Gottwald, M
    Claes, L
    Wilke, HJ
    SPINE, 2005, 30 (22) : E665 - E670