Biomechanical Comparison of Subsidence Between Patient-Specific and Non-Patient-Specific Lumbar Interbody Fusion Cages
Study Design Biomechanical study. Objectives Several strategies to improve the surface of contact between an interbody device and the endplate have been employed to attenuate the risk of cage subsidence. 3D-printed patient-specific cages have been presented as a promising alternative to help mitigat...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Global spine journal 2024-05, Vol.14 (4), p.1155-1163 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 1163 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 4 |
| container_start_page | 1155 |
| container_title | Global spine journal |
| container_volume | 14 |
| creator | Fernandes, Renan J.R. Gee, Aaron Kanawati, Andrew J. Siddiqi, Fawaz Rasoulinejad, Parham Zdero, Radovan Bailey, Christopher S. |
| description | Study Design
Biomechanical study.
Objectives
Several strategies to improve the surface of contact between an interbody device and the endplate have been employed to attenuate the risk of cage subsidence. 3D-printed patient-specific cages have been presented as a promising alternative to help mitigate that risk, but there is a lack of biomechanical evidence supporting their use. We aim to evaluate the biomechanical performance of 3D printed patient-specific lumbar interbody fusion cages in relation to commercial cages in preventing subsidence.
Methods
A cadaveric model is used to investigate the possible advantage of 3D printed patient-specific cages matching the endplate contour using CT-scan imaging in preventing subsidence in relation to commercially available cages (Medtronic Fuse and Capstone). Peak failure force and stiffness were analyzed outcomes for both comparison groups.
Results
PS cages resulted in significantly higher construct stiffness when compared to both commercial cages tested (>59%). PS cage peak failure force was 64% higher when compared to Fuse cage (P < .001) and 18% higher when compared to Capstone cage (P = .086).
Conclusions
Patient-specific cages required higher compression forces to produce failure and increased the cage-endplate construct' stiffness, decreasing subsidence risk. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1177/21925682221134913 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_11289543</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sage_id>10.1177_21925682221134913</sage_id><sourcerecordid>3050107862</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c467t-dbbadc3d592d0fb8af0855c5884f27ca8669792dfe6e87e93cd17def1bd7584c3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1UUtPFTEYbYwGCPID3JhJ3LgZ7GP6mJWRG1GSGzVB102n_QolM-21nYHw7y25eEGI3bTpefR8PQi9IfiYECk_UNJTLhSllBDW9YS9QAd3dy0XPX65Oyu6j45KucJ1CSoZoXtonwnKq5oeoOuTkCawlyYGa8ZmlaaNyaGk2CTfnC9DCQ6iheYE5huA2Pwwc4A4t-cbsMEH25jomm8pts-A9TINJjdncYY8JHfbnC4lVN-VuYDyGr3yZixwdL8fol-nn3-uvrbr71_OVp_Wre2EnFs3DMZZ5mpYh_2gjMeKc8uV6jyV1ighelkxDwKUhJ5ZR6QDTwYnueosO0Qft76bZZjA2Zowm1FvcphMvtXJBP0vEsOlvkjXmhCqet6x6vD-3iGn3wuUWU-hWBhHEyEtRVNJRYf7HstKffeEepWWHOt8mmGOCZZK0MoiW5bNqZQMfpeGYH3XrH7WbNW8fTzGTvG3x0o43hJK_d2HZ__v-AflvK0Z</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>3050107862</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Biomechanical Comparison of Subsidence Between Patient-Specific and Non-Patient-Specific Lumbar Interbody Fusion Cages</title><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Sage Journals GOLD Open Access 2024</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Fernandes, Renan J.R. ; Gee, Aaron ; Kanawati, Andrew J. ; Siddiqi, Fawaz ; Rasoulinejad, Parham ; Zdero, Radovan ; Bailey, Christopher S.</creator><creatorcontrib>Fernandes, Renan J.R. ; Gee, Aaron ; Kanawati, Andrew J. ; Siddiqi, Fawaz ; Rasoulinejad, Parham ; Zdero, Radovan ; Bailey, Christopher S.</creatorcontrib><description>Study Design
Biomechanical study.
Objectives
Several strategies to improve the surface of contact between an interbody device and the endplate have been employed to attenuate the risk of cage subsidence. 3D-printed patient-specific cages have been presented as a promising alternative to help mitigate that risk, but there is a lack of biomechanical evidence supporting their use. We aim to evaluate the biomechanical performance of 3D printed patient-specific lumbar interbody fusion cages in relation to commercial cages in preventing subsidence.
Methods
A cadaveric model is used to investigate the possible advantage of 3D printed patient-specific cages matching the endplate contour using CT-scan imaging in preventing subsidence in relation to commercially available cages (Medtronic Fuse and Capstone). Peak failure force and stiffness were analyzed outcomes for both comparison groups.
Results
PS cages resulted in significantly higher construct stiffness when compared to both commercial cages tested (>59%). PS cage peak failure force was 64% higher when compared to Fuse cage (P < .001) and 18% higher when compared to Capstone cage (P = .086).
Conclusions
Patient-specific cages required higher compression forces to produce failure and increased the cage-endplate construct' stiffness, decreasing subsidence risk.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2192-5682</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2192-5690</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/21925682221134913</identifier><identifier>PMID: 36259252</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications</publisher><subject>Biomechanics ; Original</subject><ispartof>Global spine journal, 2024-05, Vol.14 (4), p.1155-1163</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2022</rights><rights>The Author(s) 2022. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution – Non-Commercial – No Derivatives License https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>The Author(s) 2022 2022 AO Spine, unless otherwise noted. Manuscript content on this site is licensed under Creative Commons Licenses</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c467t-dbbadc3d592d0fb8af0855c5884f27ca8669792dfe6e87e93cd17def1bd7584c3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c467t-dbbadc3d592d0fb8af0855c5884f27ca8669792dfe6e87e93cd17def1bd7584c3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-6696-764X ; 0000-0002-4188-1882</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11289543/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11289543/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,315,729,782,786,866,887,21973,27860,27931,27932,44952,45340,53798,53800</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36259252$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Fernandes, Renan J.R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gee, Aaron</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kanawati, Andrew J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Siddiqi, Fawaz</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rasoulinejad, Parham</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zdero, Radovan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bailey, Christopher S.</creatorcontrib><title>Biomechanical Comparison of Subsidence Between Patient-Specific and Non-Patient-Specific Lumbar Interbody Fusion Cages</title><title>Global spine journal</title><addtitle>Global Spine J</addtitle><description>Study Design
Biomechanical study.
Objectives
Several strategies to improve the surface of contact between an interbody device and the endplate have been employed to attenuate the risk of cage subsidence. 3D-printed patient-specific cages have been presented as a promising alternative to help mitigate that risk, but there is a lack of biomechanical evidence supporting their use. We aim to evaluate the biomechanical performance of 3D printed patient-specific lumbar interbody fusion cages in relation to commercial cages in preventing subsidence.
Methods
A cadaveric model is used to investigate the possible advantage of 3D printed patient-specific cages matching the endplate contour using CT-scan imaging in preventing subsidence in relation to commercially available cages (Medtronic Fuse and Capstone). Peak failure force and stiffness were analyzed outcomes for both comparison groups.
Results
PS cages resulted in significantly higher construct stiffness when compared to both commercial cages tested (>59%). PS cage peak failure force was 64% higher when compared to Fuse cage (P < .001) and 18% higher when compared to Capstone cage (P = .086).
Conclusions
Patient-specific cages required higher compression forces to produce failure and increased the cage-endplate construct' stiffness, decreasing subsidence risk.</description><subject>Biomechanics</subject><subject>Original</subject><issn>2192-5682</issn><issn>2192-5690</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>AFRWT</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><recordid>eNp1UUtPFTEYbYwGCPID3JhJ3LgZ7GP6mJWRG1GSGzVB102n_QolM-21nYHw7y25eEGI3bTpefR8PQi9IfiYECk_UNJTLhSllBDW9YS9QAd3dy0XPX65Oyu6j45KucJ1CSoZoXtonwnKq5oeoOuTkCawlyYGa8ZmlaaNyaGk2CTfnC9DCQ6iheYE5huA2Pwwc4A4t-cbsMEH25jomm8pts-A9TINJjdncYY8JHfbnC4lVN-VuYDyGr3yZixwdL8fol-nn3-uvrbr71_OVp_Wre2EnFs3DMZZ5mpYh_2gjMeKc8uV6jyV1ighelkxDwKUhJ5ZR6QDTwYnueosO0Qft76bZZjA2Zowm1FvcphMvtXJBP0vEsOlvkjXmhCqet6x6vD-3iGn3wuUWU-hWBhHEyEtRVNJRYf7HstKffeEepWWHOt8mmGOCZZK0MoiW5bNqZQMfpeGYH3XrH7WbNW8fTzGTvG3x0o43hJK_d2HZ__v-AflvK0Z</recordid><startdate>20240501</startdate><enddate>20240501</enddate><creator>Fernandes, Renan J.R.</creator><creator>Gee, Aaron</creator><creator>Kanawati, Andrew J.</creator><creator>Siddiqi, Fawaz</creator><creator>Rasoulinejad, Parham</creator><creator>Zdero, Radovan</creator><creator>Bailey, Christopher S.</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><general>Sage Publications Ltd</general><scope>AFRWT</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6696-764X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4188-1882</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20240501</creationdate><title>Biomechanical Comparison of Subsidence Between Patient-Specific and Non-Patient-Specific Lumbar Interbody Fusion Cages</title><author>Fernandes, Renan J.R. ; Gee, Aaron ; Kanawati, Andrew J. ; Siddiqi, Fawaz ; Rasoulinejad, Parham ; Zdero, Radovan ; Bailey, Christopher S.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c467t-dbbadc3d592d0fb8af0855c5884f27ca8669792dfe6e87e93cd17def1bd7584c3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><topic>Biomechanics</topic><topic>Original</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Fernandes, Renan J.R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gee, Aaron</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kanawati, Andrew J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Siddiqi, Fawaz</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rasoulinejad, Parham</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zdero, Radovan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bailey, Christopher S.</creatorcontrib><collection>Sage Journals GOLD Open Access 2024</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Access via ProQuest (Open Access)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Global spine journal</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Fernandes, Renan J.R.</au><au>Gee, Aaron</au><au>Kanawati, Andrew J.</au><au>Siddiqi, Fawaz</au><au>Rasoulinejad, Parham</au><au>Zdero, Radovan</au><au>Bailey, Christopher S.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Biomechanical Comparison of Subsidence Between Patient-Specific and Non-Patient-Specific Lumbar Interbody Fusion Cages</atitle><jtitle>Global spine journal</jtitle><addtitle>Global Spine J</addtitle><date>2024-05-01</date><risdate>2024</risdate><volume>14</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>1155</spage><epage>1163</epage><pages>1155-1163</pages><issn>2192-5682</issn><eissn>2192-5690</eissn><abstract>Study Design
Biomechanical study.
Objectives
Several strategies to improve the surface of contact between an interbody device and the endplate have been employed to attenuate the risk of cage subsidence. 3D-printed patient-specific cages have been presented as a promising alternative to help mitigate that risk, but there is a lack of biomechanical evidence supporting their use. We aim to evaluate the biomechanical performance of 3D printed patient-specific lumbar interbody fusion cages in relation to commercial cages in preventing subsidence.
Methods
A cadaveric model is used to investigate the possible advantage of 3D printed patient-specific cages matching the endplate contour using CT-scan imaging in preventing subsidence in relation to commercially available cages (Medtronic Fuse and Capstone). Peak failure force and stiffness were analyzed outcomes for both comparison groups.
Results
PS cages resulted in significantly higher construct stiffness when compared to both commercial cages tested (>59%). PS cage peak failure force was 64% higher when compared to Fuse cage (P < .001) and 18% higher when compared to Capstone cage (P = .086).
Conclusions
Patient-specific cages required higher compression forces to produce failure and increased the cage-endplate construct' stiffness, decreasing subsidence risk.</abstract><cop>Los Angeles, CA</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><pmid>36259252</pmid><doi>10.1177/21925682221134913</doi><tpages>9</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6696-764X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4188-1882</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 2192-5682 |
| ispartof | Global spine journal, 2024-05, Vol.14 (4), p.1155-1163 |
| issn | 2192-5682 2192-5690 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_11289543 |
| source | DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Sage Journals GOLD Open Access 2024; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central |
| subjects | Biomechanics Original |
| title | Biomechanical Comparison of Subsidence Between Patient-Specific and Non-Patient-Specific 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=2024-12-05T14%3A57%3A31IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Biomechanical%20Comparison%20of%20Subsidence%20Between%20Patient-Specific%20and%20Non-Patient-Specific%20Lumbar%20Interbody%20Fusion%20Cages&rft.jtitle=Global%20spine%20journal&rft.au=Fernandes,%20Renan%20J.R.&rft.date=2024-05-01&rft.volume=14&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=1155&rft.epage=1163&rft.pages=1155-1163&rft.issn=2192-5682&rft.eissn=2192-5690&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/21925682221134913&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E3050107862%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=3050107862&rft_id=info:pmid/36259252&rft_sage_id=10.1177_21925682221134913&rfr_iscdi=true |