Search

Randomized Biomechanical Cadaveric Study-Level II.We aimed to elucidate that placing lateral lumbar interbody cages that span the stronger ring apophysis will require increasing loads for failure, decreasing rates of subsidence, regardless of bone density or endplate integrity.There are several reports regarding the rates and grades of cage subsidence when utilizing the lateral lumbar interbody fusion technique. However, there is limited data on how spanning the lateral cage across the ring apophysis can prevent it.Eight fresh-frozen human spines (L1-L5) were utilized. Each vertebra was placed with their endplates horizontal in an MTS actuator. A total of 40 specimens were randomized into Groups:Load displacement data was collected at 5 Hz until failure.Longer cages spanning the ring apophysis provided more strength in compression with less subsidence relative to shorter cages, regardless of endplate integrity.Longer cages, spanning the ring apophysis, resting on intact endplates (G2) had a significant (P 0.05) increase in strength and less subsidence when compared with the smaller cage group resting on intact endplates (G1) (P = 0.003).Longer cages spanning the ring apophysis of intact endplates (G2) showed a significant (P 0.05) increase in strength and resistance to subsidence when compared with similar length cages resting on decorticated endplates (G4) (P = 0.028).Spanning the ring apophysis increased the load to failure by 40% with intact endplates and by 30% with decorticated endplates in this osteoporotic cadaveric model. Larger cages that span the endplate ring apophysis could improve the compressive strength and decrease subsidence at the operative level despite endplate violation or osteoporosis.2.

An experimental laboratory-based biomechanical study.To investigate the correlation between cage size and subsidence and to quantify the resistance to subsidence that a larger cage can provide.The assumption that a bigger interbody cage confers less subsidence has not been proven. There was no previous study that has shown the superiority of lateral cages to bullet cages in terms of subsidence and none that has quantified the correlation between cage size and subsidence.A cage was compressed between two standardized polyurethane foam blocks at a constant speed. Four sizes of bullet cages used for transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and six sizes of lateral cages used for lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) were tested. The force required for a 5 mm subsidence, axial area of cages, and stiffness were analyzed.A larger cage required a significantly higher force for a 5 mm subsidence. Longer bullet cages required marginal force increments of only 6.2% to 14.6% compared to the smallest bullet cage. Lateral cages, however, required substantially higher increments of force, ranging from 136.4% to 235.7%. The average force of lateral cages was three times that of bullet cages (6426.5 vs. 2115.9 N), and the average stiffness of the LLIF constructs was 3.6 times that of the TLIF constructs (635.5 vs. 2284.2 N/mm). There was a strong correlation between the axial area of cages and the force for a 5 mm subsidence. Every 1 mm increment of axial area corresponded to approximately 8 N increment of force.Cage size correlated strongly with the force required for a 5 mm subsidence. The LLIF constructs required higher force and were stiffer than the TLIF constructs. Among bullet cages, longer cages only required marginal increments of force. Lateral cages, however, required substantially higher force.N/A.

Study design Retrospective comparative study of the postoperative subsidence of two interbody devices following posterior or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF/TLIF) for degenerative spondylolisthesis of the lumbar spine. Objective To assess certain radiograph characteristics of PLIF/TLIF using two interbody fusion devices at L4-L5. Summary of background data PLIF can achieve spinal stabilization with vertebral body support and direct neural decompression. Although various interbody devices have been used in PLIF procedures, no radiographic studies have compared the load-bearing capabilities of open box and fenestrated tube interbody cages. Methods Seventy-five patients who underwent one-level PLIF in the L4-L5 [corrected] segment for degenerative spondylolisthesis were retrospectively reviewed with a minimum 2-year follow-up. Fenestrated tube (Group FT: n = 30 [corrected]) or open box (Group OB: n = 45 [corrected]) cages were used for the PLIF procedure. The following radiographic parameters were evaluated to compare the load-bearing capabilities: disc space height (DH); percent increase and decrease of disc height (% IDH and % DDH, respectively); and percent coverage of the cage on the endplate (% CC). Results There were no significant differences in the baseline data, including age, segmental instability and osteoporotic status, between the two groups. Anterior %IDH and % CC were significantly higher in Group OB than in Group FT (% IDH: 69.4% vs. 57.3%; % OC: 24.5% vs. 12.9%), and anterior and posterior % DDH were significantly higher in Group FT than in Group OB (anterior: -2.9% vs. -.1%; posterior: -6.6% vs. -.3%). Although the restored DH gradually reduced over time in both groups, significant reduction to the preoperative level only occurred in Group FT. Conclusions The load-bearing capabilities of the open box cage are superior to those of the fenestrated tube cage. Since there were no significant differences between the baseline status of the two groups, the larger cross-sectional area and stable framework design of the open box cage appears to bring about a greater load-bearing capability. Therefore, the open box cage seems to be biomechanically more advantageous as an interbody device for PLIF than the fenestrated tube cage.

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.

A biomechanical investigation using a human cadaver, multisegmental lumbosacral spine model.To determine if 2 small, posterolaterally positioned titanium mesh interbody cages would provide superior construct strength and stiffness in compression compared to central cage placement. In addition, determine construct stiffness with interbody cages as opposed to an intact spine and assess the effect of bone mineral density (BMD).Previous work has shown that the posterolateral corners of the lumbosacral endplates are stronger than the anterior and central regions. Information to suggest appropriate interbody cage positioning to avoid subsidence into adjacent vertebrae would be valuable for spine surgeons and implant designers.A total of 27 functional spinal units from L3 to S1 were dual x-ray absorptiometry scanned for BMD, instrumented with pedicle screw systems, and tested to failure in compression with titanium mesh interbody cages placed in 1 of 3 positions: 2 small posterolateral, 2 small central, or 1 large central. Analysis of covariance was conducted to compare failure load and stiffness across the different cage configurations. Repeated measures analysis of variance was used to analyze stiffness between functional spinal units with intact disc, discectomy, or interbody cages. Failure load was correlated against BMD.Of the 3 placement patterns, 2 small titanium mesh cages in the posterolateral corners had 20% higher failure loads, although the difference was not significant (P = 0.20). Stiffness in compression for the 3 cage positions was not significantly different (P = 0.82). All intact discs with posterior instrumentation were significantly stiffer than any of the cage patterns (P = 0.0001). BMD of the vertebrae significantly correlated with failure loads (P = 0.007).The placement of 2 small interbody cages posterolaterally tended to result in higher failure loads than central cage placement, although the results were not statistically significant. It is noteworthy that cage placement in any position resulted in a less stiff construct in compression than with an intact disc.

Study Design. A numerical analysis of stress shielding of the bone graft in box and cylinder interbody fusion cages was performed. Objectives. To evaluate the stress shielding characteristics of box and cylinder interbody fusion cages for the cervical spine with regard to their rigidity and contiguous pore size. Summary of Background Data. Cage design has been shown to influence loading of the augmented bone graft tissue. In addition, a large contiguous pore design is believed to be important to avoid stress shielding effects. Methods. A two-dimensional axisymmetric, biphasic finite-element model of the cage incorporating the bone graft and the adjacent vertebral bodies was developed. Analysis was performed in two parts. First, the vertebrae were loaded by an axial compressive force, and second, the effect of vertebral penetration by the interbody cage was simulated. Results. Straining of bone graft in the box cage was generally lower than that of the cylinder cage. The strains in the cylinder cage were seen to be more uniformly distributed, whereas in the box cage straining was concentrated in the graft under the endplates. Vertebral penetration by the cylinder cage resulted in significant straining of the bone graft (28% strain), whereas lower strains were determined in the box cage (a maximum of 17% strain). Conclusions. The central pore in the box design does not seem as effective as the fully open cylinder cage in transferring loads to the augmented graft tissue. Early penetration of the adjacent vertebrae by the cylinder cage may provide early postoperative stability and load the graft tissue, thereby imparting the necessary signals for fusion.

Emerging techniques for management of degenerative disc disease include modern fusion interbody cage devices, intradiscal electrothermal therapy, and disc prostheses among others. The management of discogenic low back pain is controversial: its accurate diagnosis is difficult, and treatment is inconsistent. Before wide application, the advantages and disadvantages of each procedure must be considered in lieu of inadequate study design and the lack of sufficient long-term outcome studies.

Study design A literature review was conducted of basic science research and clinical experiences describing the use of interbody cage devices for the management of degenerative spinal abnormalities. Objectives To summarize current knowledge regarding the use of interbody fusion cages. Summary of background data Degenerative conditions of the lumbar and cervical spine are a major societal expense and a leading cause of disability. Fusion surgery may be used to treat patients with some of these conditions. During the past decade, interbody cages have been popularized as a useful fusion technique with high rates of clinical and radiographic success reported. Cages may be implanted using a variety of surgical approaches to the disc space and can be used alone or with supplemental posterior fixation. Methods A literature review of biomechanical, biologic, and clinical studies of threaded interbody cages was performed. Results Interbody cages have been shown to successfully promote fusion in a variety of animal models. In biomechanical studies, anteriorly placed threaded cages significantly stabilize the motion segment in all directions except extension. Posteriorly placed cages provide less stability as a result of the facetectomy required for placement of an appropriately sized device. Successful clinical and radiographic results have been reported with the use of interbody cages. Most reported cage failures are the result of technical difficulties with implantation or poor patient selection. Accurate radiographic assessment of fusion in the presence of a metal interbody cage remains challenging, and studies evaluating alternate biomaterial cages are underway. Conclusion Interbody cages are a useful technique for achieving spinal fusion and have been shown to have an acceptable clinical success rate in appropriately selected patients.

STUDY DESIGN An in vitro biomechanical investigation of the immediate stability in cervical reconstruction. OBJECTIVES The purpose of this study was to compare the segmental stability afforded by the interbody fusion cage, the anterior locking plate, and the "gold standard" autograft. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA Recently, interbody fusion cage devices have been developed and used for cervical reconstruction, but to the authors' knowledge no studies have investigated the biomechanical properties of the stand-alone interbody cage device in the cervical spine. METHODS Using six human cervical specimens, nondestructive biomechanical testing were performed, including axial rotation (+/-1.5 Nm, 50 N preload), flexion/extension (+/-1.5 Nm) and lateral bending (+/-1.5 Nm) loading modes. After C4-C5 discectomy, each specimen was reconstructed in the following order: RABEA cage (cage), tricortical bone graft (autograft), cervical spine locking plate system (plate). Unconstrained three-dimensional segmental range of motion at C4-C5 and above and below were evaluated. RESULTS In flexion/extension, the plate demonstrated significantly lower range of motion than did the cage and the autograft (P < 0.005), and the cage showed a significantly higher range of motion than did the intact spine (P < 0.05). Under axial rotation, the plate indicated a significantly lower range of motion than did all other groups (P < 0.05). No significant differences were indicated in lateral bending. Adjacent to C4-C5, an increased range of motion was observed. CONCLUSIONS The increased motion adjacent to C4-C5 may provide an argument for acceleration of disc degeneration. From the biomechanical point of view, this study suggests that the cervical interbody fusion cage should be supplemented with additional external or internal supports to prevent excessive motion in flexion-extension.