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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kuhns, Craig A., Harris, Jonathan A., Hussain, Mir M., Muzumdar, Aditya, Bucklen, Brandon S., Khalil, Saif
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