Cargando…

Vertebral compression model and comparison of augmentation agents

Study design: Biomechanical study. Objectives: To evaluate the compression strengths of various bone fillers used in treating vertebral compression fractures using a third-generation sawbone model and to evaluate the viability of this novel model as an alternative to actual human or animal vertebrae...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hill, Clint, Wingerter, Scott, Parsell, Doug, McGuire, Robert
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: © AOSpine International 2011
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3427969/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22956933
http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0030-1267083
_version_ 1782241657125601280
author Hill, Clint
Wingerter, Scott
Parsell, Doug
McGuire, Robert
author_facet Hill, Clint
Wingerter, Scott
Parsell, Doug
McGuire, Robert
author_sort Hill, Clint
collection PubMed
description Study design: Biomechanical study. Objectives: To evaluate the compression strengths of various bone fillers used in treating vertebral compression fractures using a third-generation sawbone model and to evaluate the viability of this novel model as an alternative to actual human or animal vertebrae for biomechanical testing of vertebral-filling materials. Methods: Cavities were created in the osteoporotic vertebral body sawbone models and filled with PMMA, SRS, MIIGX3 HiVisc, and BoneSource fillers. These were cured according to manufacturers' recommendations and then tested to failure in the compression model. Elastic modulus was calculated and compared with the control group which was not augmented. Results: The mean modulus of elasticity for the control group vertebrae was 92.44 ± 19.28 MPa. The mean modulus of elasticity was highest in the polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) group (195.47 ± 2.33 MPa) and lowest in the MIIG group (25.79 ± 4.77 MPa). The results for the SRS-tricalcium phosphate group (79.14 ± 20.20 MPa) were closest to the control group, followed by the BoneSource group (57.49 ± 8.35 MPa). Statistical analysis, for comparison of individual group means, identified significant differences between the control group and all other groups (P < .05), with the exception of the SRS-tricalcium phosphate group (P = .65, versus control). The modulus of elasticity for the PMMA group was significantly higher than all other groups (P < .001). Conclusion: The third-generation osteoporotic sawbones model simulates in vitro physiological specimen function. It was effective for comparing which osteoconductive agents may provide adequate strength while minimizing potential adjacent level fracture. Increased stiffness was seen with PMMA compared with the unaugmented control as well as with calcium phosphate or calcium sulfate cements suggesting that these may reduce adjacent segment fractures.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3427969
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2011
publisher © AOSpine International
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-34279692012-09-06 Vertebral compression model and comparison of augmentation agents Hill, Clint Wingerter, Scott Parsell, Doug McGuire, Robert Evid Based Spine Care J Article Study design: Biomechanical study. Objectives: To evaluate the compression strengths of various bone fillers used in treating vertebral compression fractures using a third-generation sawbone model and to evaluate the viability of this novel model as an alternative to actual human or animal vertebrae for biomechanical testing of vertebral-filling materials. Methods: Cavities were created in the osteoporotic vertebral body sawbone models and filled with PMMA, SRS, MIIGX3 HiVisc, and BoneSource fillers. These were cured according to manufacturers' recommendations and then tested to failure in the compression model. Elastic modulus was calculated and compared with the control group which was not augmented. Results: The mean modulus of elasticity for the control group vertebrae was 92.44 ± 19.28 MPa. The mean modulus of elasticity was highest in the polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) group (195.47 ± 2.33 MPa) and lowest in the MIIG group (25.79 ± 4.77 MPa). The results for the SRS-tricalcium phosphate group (79.14 ± 20.20 MPa) were closest to the control group, followed by the BoneSource group (57.49 ± 8.35 MPa). Statistical analysis, for comparison of individual group means, identified significant differences between the control group and all other groups (P < .05), with the exception of the SRS-tricalcium phosphate group (P = .65, versus control). The modulus of elasticity for the PMMA group was significantly higher than all other groups (P < .001). Conclusion: The third-generation osteoporotic sawbones model simulates in vitro physiological specimen function. It was effective for comparing which osteoconductive agents may provide adequate strength while minimizing potential adjacent level fracture. Increased stiffness was seen with PMMA compared with the unaugmented control as well as with calcium phosphate or calcium sulfate cements suggesting that these may reduce adjacent segment fractures. © AOSpine International 2011-02 /pmc/articles/PMC3427969/ /pubmed/22956933 http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0030-1267083 Text en © Thieme Medical Publishers
spellingShingle Article
Hill, Clint
Wingerter, Scott
Parsell, Doug
McGuire, Robert
Vertebral compression model and comparison of augmentation agents
title Vertebral compression model and comparison of augmentation agents
title_full Vertebral compression model and comparison of augmentation agents
title_fullStr Vertebral compression model and comparison of augmentation agents
title_full_unstemmed Vertebral compression model and comparison of augmentation agents
title_short Vertebral compression model and comparison of augmentation agents
title_sort vertebral compression model and comparison of augmentation agents
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3427969/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22956933
http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0030-1267083
work_keys_str_mv AT hillclint vertebralcompressionmodelandcomparisonofaugmentationagents
AT wingerterscott vertebralcompressionmodelandcomparisonofaugmentationagents
AT parselldoug vertebralcompressionmodelandcomparisonofaugmentationagents
AT mcguirerobert vertebralcompressionmodelandcomparisonofaugmentationagents