» Articles » PMID: 15770178

Interbody Device Shape and Size Are Important to Strengthen the Vertebra-implant Interface

Overview
Specialty Orthopedics
Date 2005 Mar 17
PMID 15770178
Citations 28
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Study Design: An in vitro cadaveric study to compare compressive failure load, strength, and stiffness of the implant-vertebra interface.

Objectives: To determine the effect of cage shape (kidney, cloverleaf, or oval) and cage surface area on endplate failure strength and secondly to determine the extent and pattern of trabecular failure adjacent to an interbody device.

Summary Of Background Data: Recent studies indicate that the posterolateral and peripheral regions of the endplate are stronger than the central. Current implants are not designed to take advantage of these stronger regions of the endplate. The zone of trabecular failure that results from interbody device subsidence has not been reported extensively in the literature.

Methods: Uniaxial compression testing with unrestricted rotation was carried out on the superior endplates of 48 thoracolumbar (T9-L2) vertebrae with 1 of 3 shaped indentors covering 20% or 40% of the endplate area. Failure load, failure strength, and stiffness were compared. Quantitative computed tomography scans were carried out before and following indentation tests to identify areas of trabecular densification that indicate localized failure.

Results: The cloverleaf-shaped indentors resulted in significantly higher (P < 0.001) failure loads (by >45%), strength (>49%), and construct stiffness (>35%) for both the 20% and 40% cross-sectional area sizes. Trabecular bone failure occurred in a semielliptical zone underlying the interbody devices, leaving the endplate and underlying cancellous bone intact.

Conclusions: The cloverleaf-shaped indentor displayed an improved strength and stiffness profile when compared to oval or kidney-shaped indentors of similar surface areas.

Citing Articles

Biomechanical Behavior of Injected Cement Spacers versus Traditional Cages in Low-Density Lumbar Spine under Compression Loading.

Csakany T, Varga P, Gueorguiev B, Lakatos E, Kurutz M Medicina (Kaunas). 2024; 60(7).

PMID: 39064584 PMC: 11278875. DOI: 10.3390/medicina60071155.


Cervical spine reconstruction after total vertebrectomy using customized three-dimensional-printed implants in dogs.

Jeon J, Kang K, Kim W, Yang S, Kang B J Vet Sci. 2024; 25(1):e2.

PMID: 38311317 PMC: 10839172. DOI: 10.4142/jvs.23241.


Fusion's Location and Quality within the Fixated Segment Following Transforaminal Interbody Fusion (TLIF).

Essa A, Shehade M, Rabau O, Smorgick Y, Mirovsky Y, Anekstein Y Healthcare (Basel). 2023; 11(21).

PMID: 37957959 PMC: 10648832. DOI: 10.3390/healthcare11212814.


Postoperative cage migration and subsidence following TLIF surgery is not associated with bony fusion.

Rickert M, Fennema P, Wehner D, Rahim T, Holper B, Eichler M Sci Rep. 2023; 13(1):12597.

PMID: 37537231 PMC: 10400549. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-38801-7.


Biomechanical evaluation of an osteoporotic anatomical 3D printed posterior lumbar interbody fusion cage with internal lattice design based on weighted topology optimization.

Huang S, Chang C, Liao C, Chan Y, Li Z, Lin C Int J Bioprint. 2023; 9(3):697.

PMID: 37273986 PMC: 10236481. DOI: 10.18063/ijb.697.