Cargando…
Evaluation of Two Novel Integrated Stand-Alone Spacer Designs Compared with Anterior and Anterior-Posterior Single-Level Lumbar Fusion Techniques: An In Vitro Biomechanical Investigation
STUDY DESIGN: In vitro biomechanical investigation. PURPOSE: To compare the biomechanics of integrated three-screw and four-screw anterior interbody spacer devices and traditional techniques for treatment of degenerative disc disease. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: Biomechanical literature describes invest...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Korean Society of Spine Surgery
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5738305/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29279739 http://dx.doi.org/10.4184/asj.2017.11.6.854 |
_version_ | 1783287664707895296 |
---|---|
author | Kuhns, Craig A. Harris, Jonathan A. Hussain, Mir M. Muzumdar, Aditya Bucklen, Brandon S. Khalil, Saif |
author_facet | Kuhns, Craig A. Harris, Jonathan A. Hussain, Mir M. Muzumdar, Aditya Bucklen, Brandon S. Khalil, Saif |
author_sort | Kuhns, Craig A. |
collection | PubMed |
description | STUDY DESIGN: In vitro biomechanical investigation. PURPOSE: To compare the biomechanics of integrated three-screw and four-screw anterior interbody spacer devices and traditional techniques for treatment of degenerative disc disease. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: Biomechanical literature describes investigations of operative techniques and integrated devices with four dual-stacked, diverging interbody screws; four alternating, converging screws through a polyether-ether-ketone (PEEK) spacer; and four converging screws threaded within the PEEK spacer. Conflicting reports on the stability of stand-alone devices and the influence of device design on biomechanics warrant investigation. METHODS: Fourteen cadaveric lumbar spines were divided randomly into two equal groups (n=7). Each spine was tested intact, after discectomy (injured), and with PEEK interbody spacer alone (S), anterior lumbar plate and spacer (AP+S), bilateral pedicle screws and spacer (BPS+S), circumferential fixation with spacer and anterior lumbar plate supplemented with BPS, and three-screw (SA3s) or four-screw (SA4s) integrated spacers. Constructs were tested in flexion-extension (FE), lateral bending (LB), and axial rotation (AR). Researchers performed one-way analysis of variance and independent t-testing (p≤0.05). RESULTS: Instrumented constructs showed significantly decreased motion compared with intact except the spacer-alone construct in FE and AR (p≤0.05). SA3s showed significantly decreased range of motion (ROM) compared with AP+S in LB (p≤0.05) and comparable ROM in FE and AR. The three-screw design increased stability in FE and LB with no significant differences between integrated spacers or between integrated spacers and BPS+S in all loading modes. CONCLUSIONS: Integrated spacers provided fixation statistically equivalent to traditional techniques. Comparison of three-screw and four-screw integrated anterior lumbar interbody fusion spacers revealed no significant differences, but the longer, larger-diameter interbody spacer with three-screw design increased stabilization in FE and LB; the diverging four-screw design showed marginal improvement during AR. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5738305 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | Korean Society of Spine Surgery |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-57383052017-12-26 Evaluation of Two Novel Integrated Stand-Alone Spacer Designs Compared with Anterior and Anterior-Posterior Single-Level Lumbar Fusion Techniques: An In Vitro Biomechanical Investigation Kuhns, Craig A. Harris, Jonathan A. Hussain, Mir M. Muzumdar, Aditya Bucklen, Brandon S. Khalil, Saif Asian Spine J Basic Study STUDY DESIGN: In vitro biomechanical investigation. PURPOSE: To compare the biomechanics of integrated three-screw and four-screw anterior interbody spacer devices and traditional techniques for treatment of degenerative disc disease. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: Biomechanical literature describes investigations of operative techniques and integrated devices with four dual-stacked, diverging interbody screws; four alternating, converging screws through a polyether-ether-ketone (PEEK) spacer; and four converging screws threaded within the PEEK spacer. Conflicting reports on the stability of stand-alone devices and the influence of device design on biomechanics warrant investigation. METHODS: Fourteen cadaveric lumbar spines were divided randomly into two equal groups (n=7). Each spine was tested intact, after discectomy (injured), and with PEEK interbody spacer alone (S), anterior lumbar plate and spacer (AP+S), bilateral pedicle screws and spacer (BPS+S), circumferential fixation with spacer and anterior lumbar plate supplemented with BPS, and three-screw (SA3s) or four-screw (SA4s) integrated spacers. Constructs were tested in flexion-extension (FE), lateral bending (LB), and axial rotation (AR). Researchers performed one-way analysis of variance and independent t-testing (p≤0.05). RESULTS: Instrumented constructs showed significantly decreased motion compared with intact except the spacer-alone construct in FE and AR (p≤0.05). SA3s showed significantly decreased range of motion (ROM) compared with AP+S in LB (p≤0.05) and comparable ROM in FE and AR. The three-screw design increased stability in FE and LB with no significant differences between integrated spacers or between integrated spacers and BPS+S in all loading modes. CONCLUSIONS: Integrated spacers provided fixation statistically equivalent to traditional techniques. Comparison of three-screw and four-screw integrated anterior lumbar interbody fusion spacers revealed no significant differences, but the longer, larger-diameter interbody spacer with three-screw design increased stabilization in FE and LB; the diverging four-screw design showed marginal improvement during AR. Korean Society of Spine Surgery 2017-12 2017-12-07 /pmc/articles/PMC5738305/ /pubmed/29279739 http://dx.doi.org/10.4184/asj.2017.11.6.854 Text en Copyright © 2017 by Korean Society of Spine Surgery http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Basic Study Kuhns, Craig A. Harris, Jonathan A. Hussain, Mir M. Muzumdar, Aditya Bucklen, Brandon S. Khalil, Saif Evaluation of Two Novel Integrated Stand-Alone Spacer Designs Compared with Anterior and Anterior-Posterior Single-Level Lumbar Fusion Techniques: An In Vitro Biomechanical Investigation |
title | Evaluation of Two Novel Integrated Stand-Alone Spacer Designs Compared with Anterior and Anterior-Posterior Single-Level Lumbar Fusion Techniques: An In Vitro Biomechanical Investigation |
title_full | Evaluation of Two Novel Integrated Stand-Alone Spacer Designs Compared with Anterior and Anterior-Posterior Single-Level Lumbar Fusion Techniques: An In Vitro Biomechanical Investigation |
title_fullStr | Evaluation of Two Novel Integrated Stand-Alone Spacer Designs Compared with Anterior and Anterior-Posterior Single-Level Lumbar Fusion Techniques: An In Vitro Biomechanical Investigation |
title_full_unstemmed | Evaluation of Two Novel Integrated Stand-Alone Spacer Designs Compared with Anterior and Anterior-Posterior Single-Level Lumbar Fusion Techniques: An In Vitro Biomechanical Investigation |
title_short | Evaluation of Two Novel Integrated Stand-Alone Spacer Designs Compared with Anterior and Anterior-Posterior Single-Level Lumbar Fusion Techniques: An In Vitro Biomechanical Investigation |
title_sort | evaluation of two novel integrated stand-alone spacer designs compared with anterior and anterior-posterior single-level lumbar fusion techniques: an in vitro biomechanical investigation |
topic | Basic Study |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5738305/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29279739 http://dx.doi.org/10.4184/asj.2017.11.6.854 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT kuhnscraiga evaluationoftwonovelintegratedstandalonespacerdesignscomparedwithanteriorandanteriorposteriorsinglelevellumbarfusiontechniquesaninvitrobiomechanicalinvestigation AT harrisjonathana evaluationoftwonovelintegratedstandalonespacerdesignscomparedwithanteriorandanteriorposteriorsinglelevellumbarfusiontechniquesaninvitrobiomechanicalinvestigation AT hussainmirm evaluationoftwonovelintegratedstandalonespacerdesignscomparedwithanteriorandanteriorposteriorsinglelevellumbarfusiontechniquesaninvitrobiomechanicalinvestigation AT muzumdaraditya evaluationoftwonovelintegratedstandalonespacerdesignscomparedwithanteriorandanteriorposteriorsinglelevellumbarfusiontechniquesaninvitrobiomechanicalinvestigation AT bucklenbrandons evaluationoftwonovelintegratedstandalonespacerdesignscomparedwithanteriorandanteriorposteriorsinglelevellumbarfusiontechniquesaninvitrobiomechanicalinvestigation AT khalilsaif evaluationoftwonovelintegratedstandalonespacerdesignscomparedwithanteriorandanteriorposteriorsinglelevellumbarfusiontechniquesaninvitrobiomechanicalinvestigation |