Can a novel rectangular footplate provide higher resistance to subsidence than circular footplates? An ex vivo biomechanical study

Spine

Volumn 37, Issue 19, 2012, Pages

  Pekmezci, Murat ^a   McDonald, Erik ^a   Kennedy, Abbey ^a   Dedini, Russell ^a   McClellan, Trigg ^a   Ames, Christopher ^b   Deviren, Vedat ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

endplate; expandable; subsidence; thoracolumbar corpectomy

Indexed keywords

RESIN;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BIOMECHANICS; CADAVER; CAGE SUBSIDENCE; CIRCULAR FOOTPLATE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; EX VIVO STUDY; FEMALE; FORCE; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; LOAD CARRYING CAPACITY; MALE; MECHANICAL STRESS; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RECTANGULAR FOOTPLATE; RIGIDITY; SPINE SURGERY; STAPES; THORACOLUMBAR CORPECTOMY; THORACOLUMBAR SPINE; VERTEBRA BODY;

ADULT; BIOMECHANICS; BONE DENSITY; COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; EQUIPMENT FAILURE; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMPLANTS, EXPERIMENTAL; INTERNAL FIXATORS; LUMBAR VERTEBRAE; MALE; MATERIALS TESTING; STRESS, MECHANICAL; THORACIC VERTEBRAE; WEIGHT-BEARING;

EID: 84865863196     PISSN: 03622436     EISSN: 15281159     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182647c0b     Document Type: Article

References (9)

1. Chou D, Lu DC, Weinstein P, et al. Adjacent-level vertebral body fractures after expandable cage reconstruction. J Neurosurg Spine 2008; 8: 584-8.
2. Arts MP, Peul WC. Vertebral body replacement systems with expandable cages in the treatment of various spinal pathologies: a prospectively followed case series of 60 patients. Neurosurgery 2008; 63: 537-44.
3. Aryan HE, Lu DC, Acosta FL Jr, et al. Corpectomy followed by the placement of instrumentation with titanium cages and recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 for vertebral osteomyelitis. J Neurosurg Spine 2007; 6: 23-30.
4. Uchida K, Kobayashi S, Nakajima H, et al. Anterior expandable strut cage replacement for osteoporotic thoracolumbar vertebral collapse. J Neurosurg Spine 2006; 4: 454-62.
5. Smith WD, Dakwar E, Le TV, et al. Minimally invasive surgery for traumatic spinal pathologies: a mini-open, lateral approach in the thoracic and lumbar spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2010; 35: S338-46.
6. Bailey CS, Sjovold SG, Dvorak MF, et al. The strength profi le of the thoracolumbar endplate refl ects the sagittal contours of the spine. Spine(Phila Pa 1976) 2011; 36: 124-8.
7. Auerbach JD, Ballester CM, Hammond F, et al. The effect of implant size and device keel on vertebral compression properties in lumbar total disc replacement. Spine J 2010; 10: 333-40.
8. Steffen T, Tsantrizos A, Fruth I, et al. Cages: designs and concepts. Eur Spine J 2000; 9: S89-94.
9. Reinhold M, Schmoelz W, Canto F, et al. A new distractable implant for vertebral body replacement: biomechanical testing of four implants for the thoracolumbar spine. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2009; 129: 1375-82.