Clinical experience with porous tantalum cervical interbody implants in a prospective randomized controlled trial

British Journal of Neurosurgery

Volumn 17, Issue 5, 2003, Pages 418-425

  Wigfield, C ^a   Robertson, J ^a   Gill, S ^a   Nelson, R ^a  

^a FRENCHAY HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Assessment; Cervical; Fusion; Radiology; Tantalum

Indexed keywords

TANTALUM;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BONE GRAFT; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; EVALUATION; FEMALE; HUMAN; ILIAC CREST; MALE; METAL IMPLANTATION; NEUROLOGIC EXAMINATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUESTIONNAIRE; RADIODIAGNOSIS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SPINE FUSION; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; CERVICAL VERTEBRAE; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; FEMALE; HUMANS; INTERVERTEBRAL DISK; INTERVERTEBRAL DISK DISPLACEMENT; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; PROSTHESES AND IMPLANTS; SPINAL DISEASES; SPINAL FUSION; SPINAL OSTEOPHYTOSIS; TANTALUM; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 0242492002     PISSN: 02688697     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/02688690310001611206     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Cloward R. The anterior approach for removal of ruptured cervical discs. J Neurol 1958;15:602-16.
2. Robinson R, Smith G. Anterolateral cervical disc removal and interbody fusion for cervical disc syndrome. Bull John Hopkins Hosp 1955;96:223-4.
3. Chang R, Falconer J, Stulberg S, Arnold W, Dyer A. Prerandomization: an alternative to classic randomisation. J Bone Jt Surg (A) 1990:1451-5.
4. Vernon H, Mior S. The Neck Disability Index: a study of reliability and validity. J Manip Physiol Therapeut 1991;14(7):409-15.
5. McHorney C, Ware J, Lu R, Sherbourne C. The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): III. Tests of data quality, scaling assumptions, and reliability across diverse patient groups. Med Care 1994;32(1):40-66.
6. Ware J, Sherbourne C. The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36). Med Care 1992;30(6):473-81.
7. Wigfield C, Nelson R. Interbody fusion devices in cervical spinal surgery: how strong is the evidence to justify their use? Spine 2001;26(6):687-94.
8. Black J. Biological performance of tantalum. Clin Mat 1994;16:167-73.
9. Bobyn J, Stackpool G, Hacking S, Tanzer M, Krygier J. Characteristics of bone ingrowth and interface mechanics of a new porous tantalum biomaterial. J Bone Jt Surg (Br) 1999;81-B(5):907-14.
10. Cordey J, Perrin SM, Steinemann SG. Stress protection due to plates: myth or reality? A parametric analysis made using the composite beam theory. Injury 2000; Sept. 31 (Suppl 3):C1-13
11. Lin P. Radiographic evidence of posterior lumbar interbody fusion with an emphasis on computed tomographic scanning. Clin Orthopaed 1989;242:158-63.
12. Hafez RF, Crockard HA. Failure of osseous conduction with cervical interbody BOP graft. Br J Neurosurg 1997;11:57-9.
13. Ibanez J, Carreno A, Garcia-Amorena C, Caral J, Gaston F, Ferrer E. Results of the biocompatible osteoconductive polymer (BOP) as an intersomatic graft in anterior cervical surgery. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 1998;140:126-33.
14. Madawi AA, Powell M, Crockard HA. Biocompatible osteoconductive polymer versus iliac graft. Spine 1996;21(18):2123-30.
15. Rawlinson J. Morbidity after anterior cervical decompression and fusion. The influence of the donor site on recovery, and the results of a trial of surgibone compared to autologous bone. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 1994;131(1-2):106-18.
16. Blumenthal S, Gill K. Can lumbar spine radiographs accurately determine fusion in postoperative patients? Correlation of routine radiographs with a second surgical look at lumbar fusions. Spine 1993;18:1186-9.
17. Levi A, Choi W, Keller P, Heiserman J, Sonntag V, Dickman C. The radiographic and imaging characteristics of porous tantalum implants within the human spine. Spine 1998;23:1245-50.
18. Park J. Point of view - tantalum implants. Spine 1998;23:1251.
19. Greenough C, Peterson M, Hadlow S, Fraser R. Instrumented posterolateral lumbar fusion. Results and comparison with anterior interbody fusion. Spine 1998;23(4):479-86.
20. Greenough C, Taylor L, Fraser R. Anterior lumbar fusion: results, assessment techniques and prognostic factors. Eu Spine J 1994;3(4):225-30.
21. An HS, Simpson JM, Glover JM, Stephany J. Comparison between allograft plus demineralised bone matrix versus autograft in anterior cervical fusion. Spine 1995;20(20):2211-16.
22. Boker DK, Schultheiss R, van Roost D, Osborn JF, Kaden B. Anterior cervical discectomy and vertebral interbody fusion with hydroxy-apatite ceramic. Preliminary results. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 1993;121:191-5.
23. Brown M, Malinin T, Davis P. A roentgenographic evaluation of frozen allografts versus autografts in anterior cervical spine fusions. Clin Orthopaed Rel Res 1976;119:231-6.
24. Perry C. Bone repair techniques, bone graft and bone graft substitutes. Clin Orthopaed Rel Res 1999;360:71-86.
25. Van Heest A, Swiontkowski M. Bone-graft substitutes. Lancet 1999;353 (Suppl 1):28-9.
26. Cook SD, Dalton JE, Tan EH, Whitecloud TS 3rd, Rueger DC. In vivo evaluation of recombinant human osteogenic protein (rhOP-1) implants as a bone graft substitute for spinal fusions. Spine 1994;19:1655-63.
27. Sampath TK, Rueger DC. Structure, function and orthopaedic applications of osteogenic protein-1 (OP-1). Complicat Orthopaed 1994;9(4):101-7.
28. Zdeblick TA, Ghanayem AJ, Rapoff AJ, Swam C, Bassett T, Cooke ME, Markel M. Cervical interbody fusion cages. An animal model with and without bone morphogenic protein. Spine 1998;23(7):758-66.
29. Sandhu HS, Kabo JM, Turner S, Kanim L, Toth JM. Porous tantalum metal as a biologically advantageous spinal fixation material; and rhBMP-2 augmentation of titanium fusion cages for experimental anterior lumbar fusion. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons 1997 Annual Meeting; San Francisco, 1997.