Cargando…
Biomechanical evaluation of two minimal access interbody cage designs in a cadaveric model
BACKGROUND: Different interbody grafts have been employed and evaluated for spinal fusion surgery. The Memory Metal Minimal Access Cage (MAC) is a hollow horseshoe shaped interbody fusion concept which provides a potentially major advantage with their small cage contact area and large graft space in...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6300451/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30569208 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40634-018-0165-1 |
_version_ | 1783381683055099904 |
---|---|
author | Kok, D. Peeters, C. M. M. Wapstra, F. H. Bulstra, S. K. Veldhuizen, A. G. |
author_facet | Kok, D. Peeters, C. M. M. Wapstra, F. H. Bulstra, S. K. Veldhuizen, A. G. |
author_sort | Kok, D. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Different interbody grafts have been employed and evaluated for spinal fusion surgery. The Memory Metal Minimal Access Cage (MAC) is a hollow horseshoe shaped interbody fusion concept which provides a potentially major advantage with their small cage contact area and large graft space in comparison with other vertical cages. METHODS: This Biomechanical Cadaveric Study evaluates the primary stability and the amount of acute subsidence occurring in two new MAC cage designs; the Niti-l and Niti-s. Both cages were made of nitinol in the form of a wedge-shaped horseshoe with spikes on the edges. Differences were the higher weight and larger tranverse section area of the Niti-l due to his specific design with two different layers of thickness. Biomechanical axial compression tests were performed on ten fresh-frozen T11-L5 vertebral bodies. RESULTS: A direct relation between force at failure and BMD was found (p < 0.001). The displacements in the vertebral body at an axial force of 800 N were 1.91 mm and 1.88 mm for the NiTi-l and NiTi-s cage, respectively. The mean failure load for the NiTi-l cages was 2043 N, and 1866 N for de NiTi-s cages. No significant difference was established between the two cages. CONCLUSION: The biomechanical strength of both NiTi-l and NiTi-s cages is good and comparable to each other with a limited amount of short-term subsidence after the initial implantation of the cage spikes into the bone. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6300451 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | Springer Berlin Heidelberg |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-63004512019-01-04 Biomechanical evaluation of two minimal access interbody cage designs in a cadaveric model Kok, D. Peeters, C. M. M. Wapstra, F. H. Bulstra, S. K. Veldhuizen, A. G. J Exp Orthop Research BACKGROUND: Different interbody grafts have been employed and evaluated for spinal fusion surgery. The Memory Metal Minimal Access Cage (MAC) is a hollow horseshoe shaped interbody fusion concept which provides a potentially major advantage with their small cage contact area and large graft space in comparison with other vertical cages. METHODS: This Biomechanical Cadaveric Study evaluates the primary stability and the amount of acute subsidence occurring in two new MAC cage designs; the Niti-l and Niti-s. Both cages were made of nitinol in the form of a wedge-shaped horseshoe with spikes on the edges. Differences were the higher weight and larger tranverse section area of the Niti-l due to his specific design with two different layers of thickness. Biomechanical axial compression tests were performed on ten fresh-frozen T11-L5 vertebral bodies. RESULTS: A direct relation between force at failure and BMD was found (p < 0.001). The displacements in the vertebral body at an axial force of 800 N were 1.91 mm and 1.88 mm for the NiTi-l and NiTi-s cage, respectively. The mean failure load for the NiTi-l cages was 2043 N, and 1866 N for de NiTi-s cages. No significant difference was established between the two cages. CONCLUSION: The biomechanical strength of both NiTi-l and NiTi-s cages is good and comparable to each other with a limited amount of short-term subsidence after the initial implantation of the cage spikes into the bone. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2018-12-19 /pmc/articles/PMC6300451/ /pubmed/30569208 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40634-018-0165-1 Text en © The Author(s). 2018 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. |
spellingShingle | Research Kok, D. Peeters, C. M. M. Wapstra, F. H. Bulstra, S. K. Veldhuizen, A. G. Biomechanical evaluation of two minimal access interbody cage designs in a cadaveric model |
title | Biomechanical evaluation of two minimal access interbody cage designs in a cadaveric model |
title_full | Biomechanical evaluation of two minimal access interbody cage designs in a cadaveric model |
title_fullStr | Biomechanical evaluation of two minimal access interbody cage designs in a cadaveric model |
title_full_unstemmed | Biomechanical evaluation of two minimal access interbody cage designs in a cadaveric model |
title_short | Biomechanical evaluation of two minimal access interbody cage designs in a cadaveric model |
title_sort | biomechanical evaluation of two minimal access interbody cage designs in a cadaveric model |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6300451/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30569208 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40634-018-0165-1 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT kokd biomechanicalevaluationoftwominimalaccessinterbodycagedesignsinacadavericmodel AT peeterscmm biomechanicalevaluationoftwominimalaccessinterbodycagedesignsinacadavericmodel AT wapstrafh biomechanicalevaluationoftwominimalaccessinterbodycagedesignsinacadavericmodel AT bulstrask biomechanicalevaluationoftwominimalaccessinterbodycagedesignsinacadavericmodel AT veldhuizenag biomechanicalevaluationoftwominimalaccessinterbodycagedesignsinacadavericmodel |