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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kok, D., Peeters, C. M. M., Wapstra, F. H., Bulstra, S. K., Veldhuizen, A. G.
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