Comparison of stiffness and failure load of two cervical spine fixation techniques in an in vitro human model

Journal of Spinal Disorders and Techniques

Volumn 18, Issue SUPPL. 1, 2005, Pages

  Hart, Robert ^a   Gillard, Joel ^a   Prem, Shilpa ^a   Shea, Marie ^a   Kitchel, Scott ^a  

^a OREGON HEALTH AND SCIENCE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Biomechanics; Cervical fusion; Cervical interbody cage; In vitro

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIOMECHANICS; BONE GRAFT; BONE PLATE; CERVICAL SPINE; CONTROLLED STUDY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; IN VITRO STUDY; INTERVERTEBRAL DISKECTOMY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANGE OF MOTION; RIGIDITY; SPINE FUSION; SPINE STABILIZATION; SURGICAL TECHNIQUE; BONE SCREW; CADAVER; COMPARATIVE STUDY; EVALUATION; INSTRUMENTATION; JOINT CHARACTERISTICS AND FUNCTIONS; MECHANICAL STRESS; METHODOLOGY; PATHOLOGY; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PHYSIOLOGY; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATION; STANDARD; TREATMENT FAILURE; WEIGHT BEARING;

BONE PLATES; CADAVER; CERVICAL VERTEBRAE; DISKECTOMY; HUMANS; INTERNAL FIXATORS; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS; RANGE OF MOTION, ARTICULAR; SPINAL FUSION; STRESS, MECHANICAL; TREATMENT FAILURE; WEIGHT-BEARING;

EID: 21344451379     PISSN: 15360652     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.bsd.0000132288.65702.6e     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Robinson RA, Walker AE, Ferlic DC, et al. The results of anterior interbody fusion of the cervical spine. J Bone Joint Surg. 1962;44:1569-1587.
2. Bohlman HH. Cervical spondylosis with moderate to severe myelopathy. Spine. 1977;2:151-162.
3. Lang E, Liebig K, et al. Multidisciplinary rehabilitation versus usual care for chronic low back pain in the community: effect on quality of life. Spine. 2003;3:270-276.
4. Kandziora F, Schollmeier K, et al. Influence of cage design on interbody fusion in a sheep cervical spine model. J Neurosurg. 2002;96:321-332.
5. DeBowes BD, et al. Cervical vertebral interbody fusion in the horse: a comparative study of bovine xenografts and autografts supported by stainless steel baskets. Am J Vet Res. 1984;45:191-199.
6. Cahill DW, et al. Suitability of bioresorbable cages for anterior cervical fusion. J Neurosurg. 2003;98:195-201.
7. Hacker RJ, Cauthen JC, Gilbert TJ, et al. A prospective randomized multicenter clinical evaluation of an anterior cervical fusion cage. Spine. 2000;25:2646-2655.
8. Gould SE, Rhee JM, Tay BK-B, et al. Cellular contribution of bone graft to fusion. J Orthop Res. 2000;18:920-927.
9. Kotani Y, Cunningham BW, Kuniyoshi A, et al. Biomechanical analysis of cervical stabilization systems: an assessment of transpedicular screw fixation in the cervical spine. Spine. 1994;19:2529-2539.
10. Sutterlin CE, et al. A biomechanical evaluation of cervical spinal stabilization methods in a bovine model static and cyclical loading. Spine. 1988;13:795-802.
11. Payer M, et al. Implantation of an empty carbon fiber composite frame cage after single-level anterior cervical discectomy in the treatment of cervical disc herniation: preliminary results. J Neurosurg. 2003;98:143-148.
12. Bradford D, Lotz J, et al. Biomechanical analysis of lumbosacral fixation. Spine. 1996;21:1211-1222.
13. Cloward RB. The anterior approach for removal of ruptured cervical disks. J Neurosurg. 1958;15:602-617.
14. Ray CD. Threaded titanium cages for lumbar interbody fusions. Spine. 1997;22:667-680.
15. Kuslich SD, et al. The Bagby and Kuslich method of lumbar interbody fusion: history, techniques, and 2-year follow-up results of a United States prospective, multicenter trial. Spine. 1998;23:1267-1278.
16. Greene DL, et al. Biomechanical comparison of cervical interbody cage versus structural bone graft. Spine. 2003;3:262-269.