Pullout test with three lumbar interbody fusion cages

被引:26
作者
Dietl, RHJ
Krammer, M
Kettler, A
Wilke, HJ
Claes, L
Lumenta, CB
机构
[1] Tech Univ Munich, Acad Hosp, Dept Neurosurg, D-8000 Munich, Germany
[2] Univ Ulm, Inst Orthopaed Res & Biomech, Ulm, Germany
关键词
cages; lumbar spine; posterior interbody fusion; pullout testing;
D O I
10.1097/00007632-200205150-00005
中图分类号
R74 [神经病学与精神病学];
学科分类号
摘要
Study Design. In vitro biomechanical testing was performed on 12 cadaveric human lumbar spines. Objective. To determine the initial dislocation resistance, as quantified by the pullout force of three different cage designs. Summary of Background Data. Interbody cage devices frequently are used as stand-alone cages in the surgical treatment of degenerative conditions in the lumbar spine. In contrast to the wide clinical acceptance of interbody fusion cages, there are only a few biomechanical studies of posterior pullout trials. Methods. Cylindrical threaded cages (Ray TFC Surgical Dynamics), bullet-shaped cages (Stryker), and newly designed rectangular titanium cages with an endplate anchorage device (Marquardt) were used for posterior interbody implants. For each device, the pullout test was performed in four specimens on both sides (L3-L4). Results. In the pullout test, the Stryker cages required a median pullout force of 130 N (minimum, 100 N; maximum, 220 N), as compared with the higher pullout force of the Marquardt cages (median, 605 N; minimum, 450 N; maximum, 680 N), and the Ray cages (median, 946 N; minimum, 125 N; maximum, 2230 N). Conclusions. Differences in pullout resistance were noted depending on the cage design, A cage design with threads or a hook device provides superior stability, as compared with ridges. The initial pullout resistance was highest for the Ray cages and lowest for the Stryker cages.
引用
收藏
页码:1029 / 1035
页数:7
相关论文
共 25 条
[1]
Posterior lumbar interbody fusion with cages: an independent review of 71 cases [J].
Agazzi, S ;
Reverdin, A ;
May, D .
JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY, 1999, 91 (02) :186-192
[2]
BAGBY GW, 1987, P ANN M N AM SPIN SO, P89
[3]
Brantigan J. W., 1993, LUMBAR FUSION STABIL, P379, DOI [DOI 10.1007/978-4-431-68234-9_41, 10.1007/978-4-431-68234-9_41]
[4]
A CARBON-FIBER IMPLANT TO AID INTERBODY LUMBAR FUSION - 2-YEAR CLINICAL-RESULTS IN THE 1ST 26 PATIENTS [J].
BRANTIGAN, JW ;
STEFFEE, AD .
SPINE, 1993, 18 (14) :2106-2117
[5]
A CARBON-FIBER IMPLANT TO AID INTERBODY LUMBAR FUSION - MECHANICAL TESTING [J].
BRANTIGAN, JW ;
STEFFEE, AD ;
GEIGER, JM .
SPINE, 1991, 16 (06) :S277-S282
[6]
Posterior lumbar interbody fusion - A biomechanical comparison, including a new threaded cage [J].
Brodke, DS ;
Dick, JC ;
Kunz, DN ;
McCabe, R ;
Zdeblick, TA .
SPINE, 1997, 22 (01) :26-31
[8]
DEBOWES RM, 1984, AM J VET RES, V45, P191
[9]
COMPARISON OF DISK SPACE HEIGHTS AFTER ANTERIOR LUMBAR INTERBODY FUSION [J].
DENNIS, S ;
WATKINS, R ;
LANDAKER, S ;
DILLIN, W ;
SPRINGER, D .
SPINE, 1989, 14 (08) :876-878
[10]
Erickson DL, 1998, TECH NEUROSURG, V4, P226