Biomechanical comparison of posterior lumbar interbody fusion cages
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 ele...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Spine (Philadelphia, Pa. 1976) Pa. 1976), 1997-10, Vol.22 (20), p.2375-2379 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 2379 |
---|---|
container_issue | 20 |
container_start_page | 2375 |
container_title | Spine (Philadelphia, Pa. 1976) |
container_volume | 22 |
creator | Rapoff, A J Ghanayem, A J Zdeblick, T A |
description | 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.
To determine the relative biomechanical performance of these competing devices.
These cages are currently under clinical investigation, and basic biomechanical data are needed.
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.
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.
This study revealed the two cages to have similar biomechanical characteristics immediately after posterior insertion and warrant further clinical studies. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1097/00007632-199710150-00010 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_79383212</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>79383212</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c376t-87434040b6dc198b620cf0c3b5760591852857ee370fae49c74223cb11d85d153</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNo9kEtPwzAQhH0AlVL4CUg-cQt47fh1hIqXVIkLnC3bccAoiYPdHPrvCbR0L6sdzexIH0IYyA0QLW_JPFIwWoHWEghwUs0KkBO0JEzQitZMnKHzUr5mWTDQC7TQjHMKaonW9zH1wX_aIXrbYZ_60eZY0oBTi8dUtiHHlHE39c5mHIf5dqnZ4XYqcTZ5-xHKBTptbVfC5WGv0Pvjw9v6udq8Pr2s7zaVZ1JsKyVrVpOaONF40MoJSnxLPHNcCsI1KE4VlyEwSVobau1lTSnzDqBRvAHOVuh6_3fM6XsKZWv6WHzoOjuENBUjNVOMAp2Nam_0OZWSQ2vGHHubdwaI-WVm_pmZIzPzx2yOXh06JteH5hg8AGM_2xFoYA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>79383212</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Biomechanical comparison of posterior lumbar interbody fusion cages</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Journals@Ovid Complete</source><creator>Rapoff, A J ; Ghanayem, A J ; Zdeblick, T A</creator><creatorcontrib>Rapoff, A J ; Ghanayem, A J ; Zdeblick, T A</creatorcontrib><description>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.
To determine the relative biomechanical performance of these competing devices.
These cages are currently under clinical investigation, and basic biomechanical data are needed.
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.
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.
This study revealed the two cages to have similar biomechanical characteristics immediately after posterior insertion and warrant further clinical studies.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0362-2436</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1097/00007632-199710150-00010</identifier><identifier>PMID: 9355218</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States</publisher><subject>Animals ; Biomechanical Phenomena ; Cattle ; Equipment Design ; Humans ; Internal Fixators ; Lumbar Vertebrae - surgery ; Orthopedic Fixation Devices ; Prostheses and Implants ; Spinal Fusion - instrumentation ; Stress, Mechanical</subject><ispartof>Spine (Philadelphia, Pa. 1976), 1997-10, Vol.22 (20), p.2375-2379</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c376t-87434040b6dc198b620cf0c3b5760591852857ee370fae49c74223cb11d85d153</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c376t-87434040b6dc198b620cf0c3b5760591852857ee370fae49c74223cb11d85d153</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9355218$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Rapoff, A J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ghanayem, A J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zdeblick, T A</creatorcontrib><title>Biomechanical comparison of posterior lumbar interbody fusion cages</title><title>Spine (Philadelphia, Pa. 1976)</title><addtitle>Spine (Phila Pa 1976)</addtitle><description>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.
To determine the relative biomechanical performance of these competing devices.
These cages are currently under clinical investigation, and basic biomechanical data are needed.
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.
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.
This study revealed the two cages to have similar biomechanical characteristics immediately after posterior insertion and warrant further clinical studies.</description><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Biomechanical Phenomena</subject><subject>Cattle</subject><subject>Equipment Design</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Internal Fixators</subject><subject>Lumbar Vertebrae - surgery</subject><subject>Orthopedic Fixation Devices</subject><subject>Prostheses and Implants</subject><subject>Spinal Fusion - instrumentation</subject><subject>Stress, Mechanical</subject><issn>0362-2436</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1997</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNo9kEtPwzAQhH0AlVL4CUg-cQt47fh1hIqXVIkLnC3bccAoiYPdHPrvCbR0L6sdzexIH0IYyA0QLW_JPFIwWoHWEghwUs0KkBO0JEzQitZMnKHzUr5mWTDQC7TQjHMKaonW9zH1wX_aIXrbYZ_60eZY0oBTi8dUtiHHlHE39c5mHIf5dqnZ4XYqcTZ5-xHKBTptbVfC5WGv0Pvjw9v6udq8Pr2s7zaVZ1JsKyVrVpOaONF40MoJSnxLPHNcCsI1KE4VlyEwSVobau1lTSnzDqBRvAHOVuh6_3fM6XsKZWv6WHzoOjuENBUjNVOMAp2Nam_0OZWSQ2vGHHubdwaI-WVm_pmZIzPzx2yOXh06JteH5hg8AGM_2xFoYA</recordid><startdate>19971015</startdate><enddate>19971015</enddate><creator>Rapoff, A J</creator><creator>Ghanayem, A J</creator><creator>Zdeblick, T A</creator><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19971015</creationdate><title>Biomechanical comparison of posterior lumbar interbody fusion cages</title><author>Rapoff, A J ; Ghanayem, A J ; Zdeblick, T A</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c376t-87434040b6dc198b620cf0c3b5760591852857ee370fae49c74223cb11d85d153</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1997</creationdate><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Biomechanical Phenomena</topic><topic>Cattle</topic><topic>Equipment Design</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Internal Fixators</topic><topic>Lumbar Vertebrae - surgery</topic><topic>Orthopedic Fixation Devices</topic><topic>Prostheses and Implants</topic><topic>Spinal Fusion - instrumentation</topic><topic>Stress, Mechanical</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Rapoff, A J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ghanayem, A J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zdeblick, T A</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Spine (Philadelphia, Pa. 1976)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Rapoff, A J</au><au>Ghanayem, A J</au><au>Zdeblick, T A</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Biomechanical comparison of posterior lumbar interbody fusion cages</atitle><jtitle>Spine (Philadelphia, Pa. 1976)</jtitle><addtitle>Spine (Phila Pa 1976)</addtitle><date>1997-10-15</date><risdate>1997</risdate><volume>22</volume><issue>20</issue><spage>2375</spage><epage>2379</epage><pages>2375-2379</pages><issn>0362-2436</issn><abstract>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.
To determine the relative biomechanical performance of these competing devices.
These cages are currently under clinical investigation, and basic biomechanical data are needed.
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.
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.
This study revealed the two cages to have similar biomechanical characteristics immediately after posterior insertion and warrant further clinical studies.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pmid>9355218</pmid><doi>10.1097/00007632-199710150-00010</doi><tpages>5</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0362-2436 |
ispartof | Spine (Philadelphia, Pa. 1976), 1997-10, Vol.22 (20), p.2375-2379 |
issn | 0362-2436 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_79383212 |
source | MEDLINE; Journals@Ovid Complete |
subjects | Animals Biomechanical Phenomena Cattle Equipment Design Humans Internal Fixators Lumbar Vertebrae - surgery Orthopedic Fixation Devices Prostheses and Implants Spinal Fusion - instrumentation Stress, Mechanical |
title | Biomechanical comparison of posterior lumbar interbody fusion cages |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-26T04%3A04%3A37IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Biomechanical%20comparison%20of%20posterior%20lumbar%20interbody%20fusion%20cages&rft.jtitle=Spine%20(Philadelphia,%20Pa.%201976)&rft.au=Rapoff,%20A%20J&rft.date=1997-10-15&rft.volume=22&rft.issue=20&rft.spage=2375&rft.epage=2379&rft.pages=2375-2379&rft.issn=0362-2436&rft_id=info:doi/10.1097/00007632-199710150-00010&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E79383212%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=79383212&rft_id=info:pmid/9355218&rfr_iscdi=true |