Cargando…

Evaluation of the contact surface between vertebral endplate and 3D printed patient-specific cage vs commercial cage

Biomechanical study. To evaluate the performance of the contact surface for 3D printed patient-specific cages using CT-scan 3D endplate reconstructions in comparison to the contact surface of commercial cages. Previous strategies to improve the surface of contact between the device and the endplate...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Fernandes, Renan Jose Rodrigues, Gee, Aaron, Kanawati, Andrew James, Siddiqi, Fawaz, Rasoulinejad, Parham, Zdero, Radovan, Bailey, Christopher Stewart
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group UK 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9307762/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35869276
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-16895-9
_version_ 1784752836111761408
author Fernandes, Renan Jose Rodrigues
Gee, Aaron
Kanawati, Andrew James
Siddiqi, Fawaz
Rasoulinejad, Parham
Zdero, Radovan
Bailey, Christopher Stewart
author_facet Fernandes, Renan Jose Rodrigues
Gee, Aaron
Kanawati, Andrew James
Siddiqi, Fawaz
Rasoulinejad, Parham
Zdero, Radovan
Bailey, Christopher Stewart
author_sort Fernandes, Renan Jose Rodrigues
collection PubMed
description Biomechanical study. To evaluate the performance of the contact surface for 3D printed patient-specific cages using CT-scan 3D endplate reconstructions in comparison to the contact surface of commercial cages. Previous strategies to improve the surface of contact between the device and the endplate have been employed to attenuate the risk of cage subsidence. Patient-specific cages have been used to help, but only finite-element studies have evaluated the effectiveness of this approach. There is a possible mismatch between the CT-scan endplate image used to generate the cage and the real bony endplate anatomy that could limit the performance of the cages. A cadaveric model is used to investigate the possible mismatch between 3D printed patient-specific cages and the endplate and compare them to commercially available cages (Medtronic Fuse and Capstone). Contact area and contact stress were used as outcomes. When PS cage was compared to the Capstone cage, the mean contact area obtained was 100 ± 23.6 mm(2) and 57.5 ± 13.7 mm(2), respectively (p < 0.001). When compared to the Fuse cage, the mean contact area was 104.8 ± 39.6 mm(2) and 55.2 ± 35.1 mm(2), respectively(p < 0.001). Patient-specific cages improve the contact area between the implant and the endplate surface, reducing the contact stress and the risk of implant subsidence during LIF surgeries.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9307762
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Nature Publishing Group UK
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-93077622022-07-24 Evaluation of the contact surface between vertebral endplate and 3D printed patient-specific cage vs commercial cage Fernandes, Renan Jose Rodrigues Gee, Aaron Kanawati, Andrew James Siddiqi, Fawaz Rasoulinejad, Parham Zdero, Radovan Bailey, Christopher Stewart Sci Rep Article Biomechanical study. To evaluate the performance of the contact surface for 3D printed patient-specific cages using CT-scan 3D endplate reconstructions in comparison to the contact surface of commercial cages. Previous strategies to improve the surface of contact between the device and the endplate have been employed to attenuate the risk of cage subsidence. Patient-specific cages have been used to help, but only finite-element studies have evaluated the effectiveness of this approach. There is a possible mismatch between the CT-scan endplate image used to generate the cage and the real bony endplate anatomy that could limit the performance of the cages. A cadaveric model is used to investigate the possible mismatch between 3D printed patient-specific cages and the endplate and compare them to commercially available cages (Medtronic Fuse and Capstone). Contact area and contact stress were used as outcomes. When PS cage was compared to the Capstone cage, the mean contact area obtained was 100 ± 23.6 mm(2) and 57.5 ± 13.7 mm(2), respectively (p < 0.001). When compared to the Fuse cage, the mean contact area was 104.8 ± 39.6 mm(2) and 55.2 ± 35.1 mm(2), respectively(p < 0.001). Patient-specific cages improve the contact area between the implant and the endplate surface, reducing the contact stress and the risk of implant subsidence during LIF surgeries. Nature Publishing Group UK 2022-07-22 /pmc/articles/PMC9307762/ /pubmed/35869276 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-16895-9 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Article
Fernandes, Renan Jose Rodrigues
Gee, Aaron
Kanawati, Andrew James
Siddiqi, Fawaz
Rasoulinejad, Parham
Zdero, Radovan
Bailey, Christopher Stewart
Evaluation of the contact surface between vertebral endplate and 3D printed patient-specific cage vs commercial cage
title Evaluation of the contact surface between vertebral endplate and 3D printed patient-specific cage vs commercial cage
title_full Evaluation of the contact surface between vertebral endplate and 3D printed patient-specific cage vs commercial cage
title_fullStr Evaluation of the contact surface between vertebral endplate and 3D printed patient-specific cage vs commercial cage
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of the contact surface between vertebral endplate and 3D printed patient-specific cage vs commercial cage
title_short Evaluation of the contact surface between vertebral endplate and 3D printed patient-specific cage vs commercial cage
title_sort evaluation of the contact surface between vertebral endplate and 3d printed patient-specific cage vs commercial cage
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9307762/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35869276
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-16895-9
work_keys_str_mv AT fernandesrenanjoserodrigues evaluationofthecontactsurfacebetweenvertebralendplateand3dprintedpatientspecificcagevscommercialcage
AT geeaaron evaluationofthecontactsurfacebetweenvertebralendplateand3dprintedpatientspecificcagevscommercialcage
AT kanawatiandrewjames evaluationofthecontactsurfacebetweenvertebralendplateand3dprintedpatientspecificcagevscommercialcage
AT siddiqifawaz evaluationofthecontactsurfacebetweenvertebralendplateand3dprintedpatientspecificcagevscommercialcage
AT rasoulinejadparham evaluationofthecontactsurfacebetweenvertebralendplateand3dprintedpatientspecificcagevscommercialcage
AT zderoradovan evaluationofthecontactsurfacebetweenvertebralendplateand3dprintedpatientspecificcagevscommercialcage
AT baileychristopherstewart evaluationofthecontactsurfacebetweenvertebralendplateand3dprintedpatientspecificcagevscommercialcage