Stress shielding in box and cylinder cervical interbody fusion cage designs

Spine

Volumn 30, Issue 8, 2005, Pages 908-914

  Epari, Devakara R ^a   Kandziora, Frank ^a   Duda, Georg N ^a  

^a CHARITÉ UNIVERSITÄTSMEDIZIN BERLIN   (Germany)

Author keywords

Cervical interbody fusion; Finite elements; Spine model; Stress shielding

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BONE GRAFT; BONE TRANSPLANTATION; BOX AND CYCLINDER CERVICAL INTERBODY FUSION CAGE; EXPERIMENTAL MODEL; FORCE; LOAD CARRYING CAPACITY; MECHANICAL STIMULATION; MECHANICAL STRESS; POROSITY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RIGIDITY; SPINE FUSION; SURGICAL EQUIPMENT;

BIOMECHANICS; BONE TRANSPLANTATION; CERVICAL VERTEBRAE; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS; HUMANS; INTERNAL FIXATORS; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; SPINAL FUSION; STRESS, MECHANICAL;

EID: 18244377399     PISSN: 03622436     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.brs.0000158971.74152.b6     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Kandziora F, Schollmeier G, Scholz M, et al. Influence of cage design on interbody fusion in a sheep cervical spine model. J Neurosurg 2002;96:321-32.
2. Matge G. Cervical cage fusion with 5 different implants: 250 cases. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2002;144:539-49; discussion 50.
3. Weiner BK, Fraser RD. Spine update lumbar interbody cages. Spine 1998;23:634-40.
4. Goodship AE, Cunningham JL, Kenwright J. Strain rate and timing of stimulation in mechanical modulation of fracture healing. Clin Orthop 1998;355(Suppl):S105-15.
5. Kenwright J, Gardner T. Mechanical influences on tibial fracture healing. Clin Orthop 1998;(355 Suppl):S179-90.
6. Kandziora F, Pflugmacher R, Schafer J, et al. Biomechanical comparison of cervical spine interbody fusion cages. Spine 2001;26:1850-7.
7. Shimamoto N, Cunningham BW, Dmitriev AE, et al. Biomechanical evaluation of stand-alone interbody fusion cages in the cervical spine. Spine 2001;26:E432-6.
8. Togawa D, Bauer TW, Brantigan JW, et al. Bone graft incorporation in radiographically successful human intervertebral body fusion cages. Spine 2001;26:2744-50.
9. Huiskes R, Weinans H, van Rietbergen B. The relationship between stress shielding and bone resorption around total hip stems and the effects of flexible materials. Clin Orthop 1992;274:124-34.
10. Otani T, Whiteside LA, White SE. Strain distribution in the proximal femur with flexible composite and metallic femoral components under axial and torsional loads. J Biomed Mater Res 1993;27:575-85.
11. van Dijk M, Smit TH, Sugihara S, et al. The effect of cage stiffness on the rate of lumbar interbody fusion: an in vivo model using poly(l-lactic acid) and titanium cages. Spine 2002;27:682-8.
12. Smit TH, Muller R, van Dijk M, et al. Changes in bone architecture during spinal fusion: three years follow-up and the role of cage stiffness. Spine 2003;28:1802-8.
13. Kanayama M, Cunningham BW, Haggerty CJ, et al. In vitro biomechanical investigation of the stability and stress-shielding effect of lumbar interbody fusion devices. J Neurosurg 2000;93:259-65.
14. Pitzen TR, Matthis D, Barbier DD, et al. Initial stability of cervical spine fixation: predictive value of a finite element model. Technical note. J Neurosurg 2002;97:128-34.
15. Lacroix D, Prendergast P. A mechano-regulation model for tissue differentiation during fracture healing: analysis of gap size and loading. J Biomech 2002;35:1163.
16. Prendergast PJ, van Driel WD, Kuiper JH. A comparison of finite element codes for the solution of biphasic poroelastic problems. Proc Inst Mech Eng [H] 1996;210:131-6.
17. Wu JZ, Herzog W, and Epstein M. Evaluation of the finite element software ABAQUS for biomechanical modelling of biphasic tissues. J Biomech 1998;31:165-9.
18. Steffen T, Tsantrizos A, Fruth I, et al. Cages: designs and concepts. Eur Spine J 2000;9:S89-94.
19. Gercek E, Arlet V, Delisle J, et al. Subsidence of stand-alone cervical cages in anterior interbody fusion: warning. Eur Spine J 2003;12:513-6.