The in vitro stabilising effect of polyetheretherketone cages versus a titanium cage of similar design for anterior lumbar interbody fusion

被引:0
作者
M. Spruit
R. G. Falk
L. Beckmann
T. Steffen
R. M. Castelein
机构
[1] Institute for Spine Surgery and Applied Research (ISSAR),Orthopaedic Research Laboratory
[2] McGill University,undefined
[3] University Medical Center Utrecht,undefined
来源
European Spine Journal | 2005年 / 14卷
关键词
Poly-ether-ether-ketone; Cage; Anterior lumbar interbody fusion; Biomechanical testing; Segmental stability;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
This biomechanical study was performed to test the primary segmental in vitro stabilising effect of a standard and large footprint radiolucent poly-ether-ether-ketone (PEEK) box cage versus a titanium box cage for anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Eighteen L2-L3 and sixteen L4-L5 cadaveric motion segments were divided into three groups and received a titanium cage or a radiolucent PEEK cage with standard or large footprint. All specimens were tested in three testing conditions: intact, stand-alone anterior cage and finally with supplemental translaminar screw fixation. Full range of motion and neutral zone measurements were determined and anterior cage pull out force was tested. The titanium design was significantly more effective in reducing the range of motion only in axial rotation. The larger footprint radiolucent cage did not increase stability as compared to the standard footprint. The titanium cage pull out force was significantly (P=0.0002) higher compared to both radiolucent cage constructs. Clinical relevance: Supplemental posterior fixation is strongly recommended to increase initial stability of any anterior interbody fusion cage construct. Although the biomechanical stability necessary to achieve spinal fusion is not defined, the radiolucent designs tested in this study, with a standard footprint as well as with a larger footprint, may be insufficiently stabilised with translaminar screws as compared to the titanium implant. Supplemental pedicle screw fixation may be required to obtain adequate stabilisation in the clinical setting.
引用
收藏
页码:752 / 758
页数:6
相关论文
共 162 条
[1]  
Blumenthal SL(1993)Can lumbar spine radiographs accurately determine fusion in postoperative patients Spine 18 1186-1189
[2]  
Gill K(1993)A carbon fiber implant to aid interbody lumbar fusion: two-year clinical results in the first 26 patients Spine 18 2106-2117
[3]  
Brantigan JW(2000)Lumbar interbody fusion using the Brantigan Spine 25 1437-1446
[4]  
Steffee AD(1994)/ Spine 19 1436-1444
[5]  
Brantigan JW(2002) cage for posterior lumbar interbody fusion and the variable pedicle screw placement system. Two-year results from a food and drug administration investigational device exemption clinical trial Spine 27 2674-2683
[6]  
Steffee AD(2002)Interbody lumbar fusion using a carbon fiber cage implant versus allograft bone: an investigational study in the Spanish goat Spine 27 1029-1036
[7]  
Lewis ML(2002)Circumferential lumbar spinal fusion with Brantigan cage Spine 27 682-688
[8]  
Quinn ML(2001) posterolateral fusion with titanium Cotrel-Dubousset instrumentation. A prospective, randomized clinical study of 146 patients Spine 26 218-225
[9]  
Persenaire JM(1997)Pull out test with three lumbar interbody fusion cages Eur Spine J 6 214-218
[10]  
Brantigan JW(2001)The effect of cage stiffness on the rate of lumbar interbody fusion. An in vivo model using poly (L-Lactic Acid) and titanium cages Seminars in Spine Surgery 13 311-315