Biomechanical comparison of posterior lumbar interbody fusion cages

被引:65
作者
Rapoff, AJ
Ghanayem, AJ
Zdeblick, TA
机构
[1] UNIV WISCONSIN,DIV ORTHOPAED SURG,MADISON,WI
[2] UNIV WISCONSIN,DEPT MECH ENGN,MADISON,WI 53706
[3] LOYOLA UNIV,MED CTR,DEPT ORTHOPAED SURG,MAYWOOD,IL 60153
关键词
biomechanics; cadaveric models; internal fixation; lumbar fusion;
D O I
10.1097/00007632-199710150-00010
中图分类号
R74 [神经病学与精神病学];
学科分类号
摘要
Study Design. Cadaveric human and bovine lumbar Spine models simulating the acute postoperative period were used to compare the biomechanical properties of two designs of intervertebral body threaded fusion: Cages. The instrumented spines were compared with intact spines and with spines with resected posterior elements, representing a revision case. Objective. To determine the relative biomechanical performance of these competing devices. Summary of Background Data. These cages are currently under clinical investigation, and basic biomechanical data are needed. Methods. Insertion torques and maximum pushout loads were measured for each cage. Intact spines, posteriorly instrumented spines (posterior lumbar interbody fusion), and spines with resected posterior elements were loaded in axial compression, flexion and extension bending, and axial torsion. Stiffness comparisons were made between the different configurations. Results. Insertion torques and pushout loads were similar for the cages. Both cages significantly increased stiffnesses above those of the intact spines and the resected spines. The BAK-instrumented spines were more stiff in axial compression, while the Threaded Interbody Fusion Device spines were more stiff in extension. Conclusions. This study revealed the two cages to have similar biomechanical characteristics immediately after posterior insertion and warrant further clinical studies.
引用
收藏
页码:2375 / 2379
页数:5
相关论文
共 23 条
[1]  
BAGBY GW, 1988, ORTHOPEDICS, V11, P931
[2]  
BRANTLEY AGU, 1995, T ORTHOPEDIC RES SOC, V20, P662
[3]  
Briggs H, 1944, J BONE JOINT SURG, V26, P125
[4]  
BRODKE DS, 1993, INT SOC STUD LUMB SP
[5]  
CLOWARD R B, 1963, Clin Orthop Relat Res, V27, P51
[6]   THE EFFECTS OF IMPLANT STIFFNESS ON THE BYPASSED BONE-MINERAL DENSITY AND FACET FUSION STIFFNESS OF THE CANINE SPINE [J].
CRAVEN, TG ;
CARSON, WL ;
ASHER, MA ;
ROBINSON, RG .
SPINE, 1994, 19 (15) :1664-1673
[7]  
DEBOWES RM, 1984, AM J VET RES, V45, P191
[8]  
GHANAYEM AJ, 1995, 10 ANN C N AM SPIN S
[9]   DISTRACTION AND COMPRESSION LOADS ENHANCE SPINE TORSIONAL STIFFNESS [J].
GOODWIN, RR ;
JAMES, KS ;
DANIELS, AU ;
DUNN, HK .
JOURNAL OF BIOMECHANICS, 1994, 27 (08) :1049-1057
[10]  
GROBLER LJ, 1994, INT SOC STUD LUMB SP, P16