» Articles » PMID: 20195596

In Vivo Experimental Study of Hat Type Cervical Intervertebral Fusion Cage (HCIFC)

Overview
Journal Int Orthop
Specialty Orthopedics
Date 2010 Mar 3
PMID 20195596
Citations 2
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare the characteristics of interbody fusion achieved using the hat type cervical intervertebral fusion cage (HCIFC) with those of an autologous tricortical iliac crest graft, Harms cage and the carbon cage in a goat cervical spine model. Thirty-two goats underwent C3-4 discectomy and fusion. They were subdivided into four groups of eight goats each: group 1, autologous tricortical iliac crest bone graft; group 2, Harms cage filled with autologous iliac crest graft; group 3, carbon cage filled with autologous iliac bone; and group 4, HCIFC filled with autologous iliac graft. Radiography was performed pre- and postoperatively and after one, two, four, eight and 12 weeks. At the same time points, disc space height, intervertebral angle, and lordosis angle were measured. After 12 weeks, the goats were killed and fusion sites were harvested. Biomechanical testing was performed in flexion, extension, axial rotation, and lateral bending to determine the stiffness and range of motion. All cervical fusion specimens underwent histomorphological analyses. One week after operation, the disc space height (DSH), intervertebral angle (IVA) and lordosis angle (LA) of HCIFC and carbon cage were statistically greater than those of autologous iliac bone graft and Harms cage. Significantly higher values for DSH, IVA and LA were shown in cage-treated goats than in those that received bone graft over a 12-week period. The stiffness of Harms cage in axial rotation and lateral bending were statistically greater than that of other groups. Radiographic and histomorphological evaluation showed better fusion results in the cage groups than in the autologous bone group. HCIFC can provide a good intervertebral distractability and sufficient biomechanical stability for cervical fusion.

Citing Articles

Preliminary results in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with the uncovertebral joint fusion cage in a goat model.

Shen Y, Yang Y, Liu H, Wu T, Ma L, Chen L BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2021; 22(1):628.

PMID: 34273965 PMC: 8286593. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-021-04412-4.


Effect of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion on adjacent segments in rabbits.

Xia L, Zheng Y, Xu H, Liu P Int J Clin Exp Med. 2015; 7(11):4291-9.

PMID: 25550944 PMC: 4276202.

References
1.
Patwardhan A, Havey R, Ghanayem A, Diener H, Meade K, Dunlap B . Load-carrying capacity of the human cervical spine in compression is increased under a follower load. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000; 25(12):1548-54. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-200006150-00015. View

2.
Kanayama M, Cunningham B, Haggerty C, Abumi K, Kaneda K, McAfee P . In vitro biomechanical investigation of the stability and stress-shielding effect of lumbar interbody fusion devices. J Neurosurg. 2000; 93(2 Suppl):259-65. DOI: 10.3171/spi.2000.93.2.0259. View

3.
Wilke H, Kettler A, Goetz C, Claes L . Subsidence resulting from simulated postoperative neck movements: an in vitro investigation with a new cervical fusion cage. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000; 25(21):2762-70. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-200011010-00008. View

4.
Kandziora F, Pflugmacher R, Scholz M, Schnake K, Lucke M, Schroder R . Comparison between sheep and human cervical spines: an anatomic, radiographic, bone mineral density, and biomechanical study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001; 26(9):1028-37. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-200105010-00008. View

5.
Kandziora F, Schollmeier G, Scholz M, Schaefer J, Scholz A, Schmidmaier G . Influence of cage design on interbody fusion in a sheep cervical spine model. J Neurosurg. 2002; 96(3 Suppl):321-32. DOI: 10.3171/spi.2002.96.3.0321. View