Initial stability of two PLIF-techniques.: A biomechanical in-vitro-comparison

被引:9
作者
Pitzen, T [1 ]
Caspar, W [1 ]
Matthis, D [1 ]
Müller-Storz, H [1 ]
König, J [1 ]
Georg, T [1 ]
Wurm, EM [1 ]
Steudel, WI [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Saarland, Neurochirurg Klin, D-66421 Homburg, Germany
来源
ZEITSCHRIFT FUR ORTHOPADIE UND IHRE GRENZGEBIETE | 1999年 / 137卷 / 03期
关键词
spine; posterior interbody fusion; biomechanics; in-vitro-study; crossover-study;
D O I
10.1055/s-2008-1037396
中图分类号
R826.8 [整形外科学]; R782.2 [口腔颌面部整形外科学]; R726.2 [小儿整形外科学]; R62 [整形外科学(修复外科学)];
学科分类号
摘要
Objective: The purpose of this biomechanical in-vitro-study was to compare two different PLIF-techniques with two types of implants on human lumbar spine: PLIF with threaded cages, (Bagby and Kuslich, Spinetech, Minneapolis, USA) and PLIF with the Moss-Miami-implants, (DePuy International Limited, Leeds, Great Britain). Methods: Six cadaveric human lumbar spine segments L2-5 were explanted, frozen at -20 degrees C and thawed before preparation. They were cut in two parts by discectomie and arthrotomie L3/4, so six specimen L2/3 and six specimen L4/5 were obtained and used in a crossover-trial. Analysis included testing in a tension-torsion-machine under axial compression with 600 N, rotation (left-right) with 25 Nm and shearing forces with 250 N without preload. This was first done in the intact and then in the fused specimen. Results: Stiffness before treatment was comparable in both groups irrespective of location. Posttreatment stiffness was higher with MOSS-MIAMI-implants as compared to PLIF with BAK-cages. Average relative superiority (and 95%-confidence intervall) were 1,98 (1,01-3,69) for compression, 2,30 (0,85-6,24) for rotation and 1,73 (0,78-3,84) for shearing. Statistical comparison of log posttreatment: stiffness was significant for compression but not for rotation and shearing (2-sided independent crossover t-test). Conclusion: This biomechanical in-vitro-study demonstrates the higher initial stability of PLIF with titanium surgical mesh and posterior instrumentation when compared to PLIF with threaded cages alone.
引用
收藏
页码:214 / 218
页数:5
相关论文
共 21 条
[1]   MECHANICAL TESTING OF THE SPINE - AN APPRAISAL OF METHODOLOGY, RESULTS, AND CONCLUSIONS [J].
ADAMS, MA .
SPINE, 1995, 20 (19) :2151-2156
[2]  
Bagby GW, 1996, MANUAL INTERNAL FIXA, P147
[3]   A CARBON-FIBER IMPLANT TO AID INTERBODY LUMBAR FUSION - MECHANICAL TESTING [J].
BRANTIGAN, JW ;
STEFFEE, AD ;
GEIGER, JM .
SPINE, 1991, 16 (06) :S277-S282
[4]  
Briggs H, 1944, J BONE JOINT SURG, V26, P125
[5]   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
[7]   BENDING AND COMPRESSIVE STRESSES ACTING ON THE LUMBAR SPINE DURING LIFTING ACTIVITIES [J].
DOLAN, P ;
EARLEY, M ;
ADAMS, MA .
JOURNAL OF BIOMECHANICS, 1994, 27 (10) :1237-+
[8]   BIOMECHANICAL ANALYSIS OF POSTERIOR INSTRUMENTATION SYSTEMS AFTER DECOMPRESSIVE LAMINECTOMY - AN UNSTABLE CALF-SPINE MODEL [J].
GURR, KR ;
MCAFEE, PC ;
SHIH, CM .
JOURNAL OF BONE AND JOINT SURGERY-AMERICAN VOLUME, 1988, 70A (05) :680-691
[9]   Comparison of interbody fusion approaches for disabling low back pain [J].
Hacker, RJ .
SPINE, 1997, 22 (06) :660-665
[10]  
HARMS J, 1997, INT S WIRB 6 7 3 WIE