Biomechanical Evaluation of a Novel Autogenous Bone Interbody Fusion Cage for Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion in a Cadaveric Model

被引:7
|
作者
Wang, Le [1 ]
Malone, Kyle T. [2 ]
Huang, Hai [1 ]
Zhang, Zhenshan [1 ]
Zhang, Zhi [1 ]
Zhang, Liang [1 ]
Li, Jian [1 ]
机构
[1] Guangzhou Med Univ, Affiliated Hosp 3, Inst Orthopaed & Traumatol, Guangzhou 510150, Guangdong, Peoples R China
[2] NNI Res Fdn, Las Vegas, NV USA
基金
中国国家自然科学基金;
关键词
posterior lumbar interbody fusion; autogenous bone; cage; pedicle screws; DONOR SITE PAIN; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; GRAFT; IMPLANT; DESIGN; SPINE; INSTRUMENTATION; STABILIZATION; COMPLICATIONS; FIXATION;
D O I
10.1097/BRS.0000000000000291
中图分类号
R74 [神经病学与精神病学];
学科分类号
摘要
Study Design. A human cadaveric biomechanical study of a novel, prefabricated autogenous bone interbody fusion (ABIF) cage. Objective. To evaluate the biomechanical properties of the ABIF cage in a single-level construct with and without transpedicular screw and rod fixation. Summary of Background Data. In current practice, posterior lumbar interbody fusion is generally carried out using synthetic interbody spacers or corticocancellous iliac crest bone graft (ICBG) in combination with posterior instrumentation. However, questions remain concerning the use of synthetic intervertebral implants as well as the morbidity ICBG harvesting. Therefore, ABIF cage has been developed to obviate some of the challenges in conventional posterior lumbar interbody fusion instrumentation and to facilitate the fusion process. Methods. Eighteen adult cadaveric lumbosacral (L3-S1) specimens were tested. Test conditions included single lumbosacral segments across (1) intact, (2) decompressed, (3) intervertebral cage alone, and (4) intervertebral cage with bilateral transpedicular fixation. Range of motion (ROM), neutral zone (NZ), and axial failure load were tested for each condition. Results. The ICBG, polyetheretherketone cage, or ABIF cage alone exhibited a significantly lower (P < 0.05) ROM and NZ than the decompressed spine. In comparison with the intact spine, all 3 test conditions without supplemental fixation were able to decrease ROM and NZ to near intact levels. When stabilized with pedicle screws, the ROM was significantly less and the NZ was significantly lower (P < 0.05) for each group both compared with the intact spine. In axial compression testing, the failure load of polyetheretherketone cage was the highest, with no significant difference between the ICBG and the ABIF cage. Conclusion. These data suggest that the novel ABIF cage can bear the physiological intervertebral peak load, similar to ICBG. When combined with pedicle screw and rod fixation, it exhibits similar biomechanical properties as the polyetheretherketone cage plus posterior instrumentation. Based on the biomechanical properties of ABIF cage, the prospect of these cages in clinical practice is expected.
引用
收藏
页码:E684 / E692
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] A comparative study between local bone graft with a cage and with no cage in single posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF): a multicenter study
    Liu, Zhili
    Liu, Jiaming
    Tan, Yongming
    He, Laichang
    Long, Xinhua
    Yang, Dong
    Huang, Shanhu
    Shu, Yong
    ARCHIVES OF ORTHOPAEDIC AND TRAUMA SURGERY, 2014, 134 (08) : 1051 - 1057
  • [22] Biomechanical evaluation of three surgical scenarios of posterior lumbar interbody fusion by finite element analysis
    Xiao, Zhitao
    Wang, Liya
    Gong, He
    Zhu, Dong
    BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING ONLINE, 2012, 11
  • [23] 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
  • [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] Lumbar interbody fusion: a parametric investigation of a novel cage design with and without posterior instrumentation
    Galbusera, Fabio
    Schmidt, Hendrik
    Wilke, Hans-Joachim
    EUROPEAN SPINE JOURNAL, 2012, 21 (03) : 455 - 462
  • [26] Biomechanical Characterization of Unilateral and Bilateral Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Constructs
    Peng, Xiangping
    Li, Shaoqing
    Yang, Sidong
    Swink, Isaac
    Carbone, Jake
    Cheng, Boyle
    Wu, Zhanyong
    BIOMED RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL, 2022, 2022
  • [27] A systematic review of anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), posterolateral lumbar fusion (PLF)
    Rathbone, John
    Rackham, Matthew
    Nielsen, David
    Lee, So Mang
    Hing, Wayne
    Riar, Sukhman
    Scott-Young, Matthew
    EUROPEAN SPINE JOURNAL, 2023, 32 (06) : 1911 - 1926
  • [28] Risk Factors for Cage Retropulsion After Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Analysis of 1070 Cases
    Kimura, Hiroaki
    Shikata, Jitsuhiko
    Odate, Seiichi
    Soeda, Tsunemitsu
    Yamamura, Satoru
    SPINE, 2012, 37 (13) : 1164 - 1169
  • [29] Biomechanical evaluation of lateral lumbar interbody fusion with secondary augmentation
    Reis, Marco T.
    Reyes, Phillip M.
    Altun, Idris
    Newcomb, Anna G. U. S.
    Singh, Vaneet
    Chang, Steve W.
    Kelly, Brian P.
    Crawford, Neil R.
    JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY-SPINE, 2016, 25 (06) : 720 - 726
  • [30] Which procedure is better for lumbar interbody fusion: anterior lumbar interbody fusion or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion?
    Jiang, Sheng-Dan
    Chen, Jiang-Wei
    Jiang, Lei-Sheng
    ARCHIVES OF ORTHOPAEDIC AND TRAUMA SURGERY, 2012, 132 (09) : 1259 - 1266