Current Concepts of Contemporary Expandable Lumbar Interbody Fusion Cage Designs, Part 1: An Editorial on Their Biomechanical Characteristics

Overview

Journal Int J Spine Surg

Date 2020 Oct 30

PMID 33122179

Citations 2

Authors

Boyle C Cheng

Isaac Swink

Rachelle Yusufbekov

Michele Birgelen

Lisa Ferrara

Kai-Uwe Lewandrowski

Domagoj Coric

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Bidirectional expandable designs for lumbar interbody fusion cages are the latest iteration of expandable spacers employed to address some of the common problems inherent to static interbody fusion cages.

Objective: To describe the rationales for contemporary bidirectional, multimaterial expandable lumbar interbody fusion cage designs to achieve in situ expansion for maximum anterior column support while decreasing insertion size during minimal-access surgeries.

Methods: The authors summarize the current concepts behind expandable spinal fusion open architecture cage designs focusing on advanced minimally invasive spinal surgery techniques, such as endoscopy. A cage capable of bidirectional expansion in both height and width to address constrained surgical access problems was of particular interest to the authors while they analyzed the relationship between implant material stiffness and geometric design regarding the risk of subsidence and reduced graft loading.

Conclusions: Biomechanical advantages of new bidirectional, multimaterial expandable interbody fusion cages allow insertion through minimal surgical access and combine the advantages of proven device configurations and advanced material selection. The final construct stiffness is sufficient to provide immediate anterior column support while accommodating reduced sizes required for minimally invasive surgery applications.

Level Of Evidence: 7.

Citing Articles

Advancements in Custom 3D-Printed Titanium Interbody Spinal Fusion Cages and Their Relevance in Personalized Spine Care.

Lewandrowski K, Vira S, Elfar J, Lorio M J Pers Med. 2024; 14(8).

PMID: 39202002 PMC: 11355268. DOI: 10.3390/jpm14080809.

Biplanar Expandable Cages for Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Are Safe and Achieve Good 1-Year Clinical and Radiological Outcomes in an Asian Population.

Sim D, Kasivishvanaath A, Jiang L, Soh R, Ling Z Int J Spine Surg. 2023; 17(4):520-525.

PMID: 37076255 PMC: 10478701. DOI: 10.14444/8472.

References

Pflugmacher R, Schleicher P, Schaefer J, Scholz M, Ludwig K, Khodadadyan-Klostermann C . Biomechanical comparison of expandable cages for vertebral body replacement in the thoracolumbar spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004; 29(13):1413-9. DOI: 10.1097/01.brs.0000129895.90939.1e. View

Cao Y, Liu F, Wan S, Liang Y, Jiang C, Feng Z . Biomechanical evaluation of different surgical procedures in single-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in vitro. Clin Biomech (Bristol). 2017; 49:91-95. DOI: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2017.08.011. View

Phillips F, Tzermiadianos M, Voronov L, Havey R, Carandang G, Renner S . Effect of the Total Facet Arthroplasty System after complete laminectomy-facetectomy on the biomechanics of implanted and adjacent segments. Spine J. 2008; 9(1):96-102. DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2008.01.010. View

Newell N, Little J, Christou A, Adams M, Adam C, Masouros S . Biomechanics of the human intervertebral disc: A review of testing techniques and results. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2017; 69:420-434. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2017.01.037. View

Cripton P, Jain G, Wittenberg R, Nolte L . Load-sharing characteristics of stabilized lumbar spine segments. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000; 25(2):170-9. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-200001150-00006. View

Cheng L, Yu Y, Zhu R, Lv H, Jia Y, Zeng Z . Structural stability of different reconstruction techniques following total sacrectomy: a biomechanical study. Clin Biomech (Bristol). 2011; 26(10):977-81. DOI: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2011.06.003. View

Xu J, He Y, Li Y, Lv G, Dai Y, Jiang B . Incidence of Subsidence of Seven Intervertebral Devices in Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Network Meta-Analysis. World Neurosurg. 2020; 141:479-489.e4. DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2020.03.130. View

Jain S, Eltorai A, Ruttiman R, Daniels A . Advances in Spinal Interbody Cages. Orthop Surg. 2016; 8(3):278-84. PMC: 6584167. DOI: 10.1111/os.12264. View

Ge D, Stekas N, Varlotta C, Fischer C, Petrizzo A, Protopsaltis T . Comparative Analysis of Two Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Techniques: Open TLIF Versus Wiltse MIS TLIF. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2018; 44(9):E555-E560. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000002903. View

10.

Coric D, Branch Jr C . Posterior lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of symptomatic spinal stenosis. Neurosurg Focus. 1997; 3(2):e5. DOI: 10.3171/foc.1997.3.2.11. View

11.

Closkey R, Parsons J, Lee C, Blacksin M, Zimmerman M . Mechanics of interbody spinal fusion. Analysis of critical bone graft area. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1993; 18(8):1011-5. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-199306150-00010. View

12.

Noordhoek I, Koning M, Jacobs W, Vleggeert-Lankamp C . Incidence and clinical relevance of cage subsidence in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a systematic review. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2018; 160(4):873-880. PMC: 5859059. DOI: 10.1007/s00701-018-3490-3. View

13.

Lee M, Bransford R, Bellabarba C, Chapman J, Cohen A, Harrington R . The effect of bilateral laminotomy versus laminectomy on the motion and stiffness of the human lumbar spine: a biomechanical comparison. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010; 35(19):1789-93. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181c9b8d6. View

14.

Gay R, Ilharreborde B, Zhao K, Zhao C, An K . Sagittal plane motion in the human lumbar spine: comparison of the in vitro quasistatic neutral zone and dynamic motion parameters. Clin Biomech (Bristol). 2006; 21(9):914-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2006.04.009. View

15.

Chatham L, Patel V, Yakacki C, Dana Carpenter R . Interbody Spacer Material Properties and Design Conformity for Reducing Subsidence During Lumbar Interbody Fusion. J Biomech Eng. 2017; 139(5). PMC: 5446564. DOI: 10.1115/1.4036312. View

16.

Wilke H, Wenger K, Claes L . Testing criteria for spinal implants: recommendations for the standardization of in vitro stability testing of spinal implants. Eur Spine J. 1998; 7(2):148-54. PMC: 3611233. DOI: 10.1007/s005860050045. View

17.

Seaman S, Kerezoudis P, Bydon M, Torner J, Hitchon P . Titanium vs. polyetheretherketone (PEEK) interbody fusion: Meta-analysis and review of the literature. J Clin Neurosci. 2017; 44:23-29. DOI: 10.1016/j.jocn.2017.06.062. View

18.

Pourtaheri S, Issa K, Lord E, Ajiboye R, Drysch A, Hwang K . Paraspinal Muscle Atrophy After Lumbar Spine Surgery. Orthopedics. 2016; 39(2):e209-14. DOI: 10.3928/01477447-20160129-07. View

19.

Palepu V, Helgeson M, Molyneaux-Francis M, Nagaraja S . The Effects of Bone Microstructure on Subsidence Risk for ALIF, LLIF, PLIF, and TLIF Spine Cages. J Biomech Eng. 2018; 141(3). DOI: 10.1115/1.4042181. View

20.

Pflugmacher R, Schleicher P, Gumnior S, Turan O, Scholz M, Eindorf T . Biomechanical comparison of bioabsorbable cervical spine interbody fusion cages. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004; 29(16):1717-22. DOI: 10.1097/01.brs.0000134565.17078.4c. View