Comparison of cage designs for transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: A biomechanical study

Clinical Biomechanics

Volumn 23, Issue 8, 2008, Pages 979-985

  Cho, Woojin ^a   Wu, Chunhui ^b   Mehbod, Amir A ^a   Transfeldt, Ensor E ^a  

^a TWIN CITIES SPINE CENTER   (United States)

^b Foundation for the Advancement of Spinal Knowledge   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BENDING (DEFORMATION); BIOMECHANICS; DYNAMIC LOADS; FUSION REACTIONS; NUCLEAR PHYSICS; STATISTICAL METHODS; TESTING; TORSIONAL STRESS;

BIOMECHANICAL STUDIES; CYCLIC LOADINGS; DISC SPACE; FLEXION-EXTENSION; FUSION TECHNIQUES; LATERAL BENDING; LUMBAR INTERBODY FUSION; MOTION SEGMENTS; MULTI-DIRECTIONAL; RANGE OF MOTION; STATISTICAL DIFFERENCES; SURFACE PROFILING;

CYCLIC LOADS;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BIOMECHANICS; CONTROLLED STUDY; EXPERIMENTAL STUDY; FEMALE; GEOMETRY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; KINEMATICS; LUMBAR VERTEBRA; MALE; MEASUREMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZATION; RANGE OF MOTION; SPINE FUSION; TRANSFORAMINAL LUMBAR INTERBODY FUSION;

AGED; BIOMECHANICS; CADAVER; FEMALE; HUMANS; INTERNAL FIXATORS; LUMBAR VERTEBRAE; LUMBOSACRAL REGION; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; PROSTHESIS DESIGN; SPINAL FUSION;

EID: 49649122758     PISSN: 02680033     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2008.02.008     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Ames C.P., Acosta Jr. F.L., Chi J., Iyengar J., Muiru W., Acaroglu E., and Puttlitz C.M. Biomechanical comparison of posterior lumbar interbody fusion and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion performed at 1 and 2 levels. Spine 30 (2005) E562-E566
2. Beutler W.J., and Peppelman Jr. W.C. Anterior lumbar fusion with paired BAK standard and paired BAK Proximity cages: subsidence incidence, subsidence factors, and clinical outcome. Spine 3 (2003) 289-293
3. Chen L., Yang H., and Tang T. Cage migration in spondylolisthesis treated with posterior lumbar interbody fusion using BAK cages. Spine 30 (2005) 2171-2175
4. Cutler A.R., Siddiqui S., Mohan A.L., Hillard V.H., Cerabona F., and Das K. Comparison of polyetheretherketone cages with femoral cortical bone allograft as a single-piece interbody spacer in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. J. Neurosurg. Spine 5 (2006) 534-539
5. Ferguson S.J., Visser J.M., and Polikeit A. The long-term mechanical integrity of non-reinforced PEEK-OPTIMA polymer for demanding spinal applications: experimental and finite-element analysis. Eur. Spine J. 15 (2006) 149-156
6. Groth A.T., Kuklo T.R., Klemme W.R., Polly D.W., and Schroeder T.M. Comparison of sagittal contour and posterior disc height following interbody fusion: Threaded cylindrical cages versus structural allograft versus vertical cages. J. Spinal Disord. Tech. 18 (2005) 332-336
7. Harris B.M., Hilibrand A.S., Savas P.E., Pellegrino A., Vaccaro A.R., Siegler S., and Albert T.J. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: the effect of various instrumentation techniques on the flexibility of the lumbar spine. Spine 29 (2004) E65-E70
8. Hee H.T., Castro Jr. F.P., Majd M.E., Holt R.T., and Myers L. Anterior/posterior lumbar fusion versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: analysis of complications and predictive factors. J. Spinal Disord. Tech. 14 (2001) 533-540
9. Holly L.T., Schwender J.D., Rouben D.P., and Foley K.T. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: indications, technique, and complications. Neurosurg. Focus 20 (2006) E6
10. Humphreys S.C., Hodges S.D., Patwardhan A.G., Eck J.C., Murphy R.B., and Covington L.A. Comparison of posterior and transforaminal approaches to lumbar interbody fusion. Spine 26 (2001) 567-571
11. Jost B., Cripton P.A., Lund T., Oxland T.R., Lippuner K., Jaeger P., and Nolte L.P. Compressive strength of interbody cages in the lumbar spine: the effect of cage shape, posterior instrumentation and bone density. Eur. Spine J. 7 (1998) 132-141
12. Kettler A., Schmoelz W., Kast E., Gottwald M., Claes L., and Wilke H.J. In vitro stabilizing effect of a transforaminal compared with two posterior lumbar interbody fusion cages. Spine 30 (2005) E665-E670
13. Krammer M., Dietl R., Lumenta C.B., Kettler A., Wilke H.J., Buttner A., and Claes L. Resistance of the lumbar spine against axial compression forces after implantation of three different posterior lumbar interbody cages. Acta Neurochir. (Wien) 143 (2001) 1217-1222
14. Lowe T.G., Tahernia A.D., O'Brien M.F., and Smith D.A. Unilateral transforaminal posterior lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF): indications, technique, and 2-year results. J. Spinal Disord. Tech. 15 (2002) 31-38
15. Lowe T.G., Hashim S., Wilson L.A., O'Brien M.F., Smith D.A., Diekmann M.J., and Trommeter J. A biomechanical study of regional endplate strength and cage morphology as it relates to structural interbody support. Spine 29 (2004) 2389-2394
16. Lund T., Oxland T.R., Jost B., Cripton P., Grassmann S., Etter C., and Nolte L.P. Interbody cage stabilisation in the lumbar spine: biomechanical evaluation of cage design, posterior instrumentation and bone density. J. Bone Joint Surg. Brit. 80 (1998) 351-359
17. McCulloch J.A., and Transfeldt E.E. Musculoskeletal and neuroanatomy of the lumbar spine. In: Cooke D.B. (Ed). Macnab's Backache (1997), Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore 7
18. Niemeyer T.K., Koriller M., Claes L., Kettler A., Werner K., and Wilke H.J. In vitro study of biomechanical behavior of anterior and transforaminal lumbar interbody instrumentation techniques. Neurosurgery 59 (2006) 1271-1276 discussion 1276-1277
19. Polly Jr. D.W., Klemme W.R., Cunningham B.W., Burnette J.B., Haggerty C.J., and Oda I. The biomechanical significance of anterior column support in a simulated single-level spinal fusion. J. Spinal Disord. Tech. 13 (2000) 58-62
20. Potter B.K., Freedman B.A., Verwiebe E.G., Hall J.M., Polly Jr. D.W., and Kuklo T.R. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: clinical and radiographic results and complications in 100 consecutive patients. J. Spinal Disord. Tech. 18 (2005) 337-346
21. Rosenberg W.S., and Mummaneni P.V. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: technique, complications, and early results. Neurosurgery 48 (2001) 569-574
22. Salehi S.A., Tawk R., Ganju A., LaMarca F., Liu J.C., and Ondra S.L. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: surgical technique and results in 24 patients. Neurosurgery 54 (2004) 368-374
23. Spruit M., Falk R.G., Beckmann L., Steffen T., and Castelein R.M. The in vitro stabilising effect of polyetheretherketone cages versus a titanium cage of similar design for anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Eur. Spine J. 14 (2005) 752-758
24. Tan J.S., Bailey C.S., Dvorak M.F., Fisher C.G., and Oxland T.R. Interbody device shape and size are important to strengthen the vertebra-implant interface. Spine 30 (2005) 638-644
25. Vadapalli S., Robon M., Biyani A., Sairyo K., Khandha A., and Goel V.K. Effect of lumbar interbody cage geometry on construct stability: a cadaveric study. Spine 31 (2006) 2189-2194
26. Vadapalli S., Sairyo K., Goel V.K., Robon M., Biyani A., Khandha A., and Ebraheim N.A. Biomechanical rationale for using polyetheretherketone (PEEK) spacers for lumbar interbody fusion - A finite element study. Spine 31 (2006) E992-E998
27. Wilke H.J., Jungkunz B., Wenger K., and Claes L.E. Spinal segment range of motion as a function of in vitro test conditions: effects of exposure period, accumulated cycles, angular-deformation rate, and moisture condition. Anat. Rec 251 (1998) 15-19