ABSTRACT
STUDY DESIGN: In vitro biomechanical study of bioabsorbable cervical spine interbody fusion cages using a sheep model. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the segmental stability provided by 2 new developed bioabsorbable cervical spine interbody fusion cages and to compare it with a tricortical iliac crest bone graft and a titanium meshed interbody fusion cage. Further, the biomechanical effect of an additional anterior plate instrumentation was determined. SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND DATA: Despite the initial favorable results, the long-term effects of metallic cage devices on spinal motion segments are still unknown. Furthermore, shortcomings of metallic cages like migration, adjacent level degeneration, stenotic myelopathy, and artifacts in postoperative radiologic assessment have already been reported. Bioabsorbable cages have been designed to avoid these complications. Currently, no information is available about the biomechanical properties of bioabsorbable cervical spine interbody fusion cages. METHODS: Forty sheep cervical spines (C2-C5) were tested in flexion, extension, axial rotation, and lateral bending with a nondestructive stiffness method using a nonconstrained testing apparatus. First, the motion segment C3-C4 was tested intact. After complete discectomy, the following groups were evaluated: autologous iliac crest bone graft, titanium mesh cylinder (Harms, DePuy AcroMed), bioabsorbable PDLLA-cage (experimental), and bioabsorbable Resorbon cage (Biomet Merck). Further, all implants were tested with an additional anterior plate instrumentation. The mean apparent stiffness, range of motion, neutral zone, and elastic zone were calculated from the corresponding load-displacement curves. RESULTS: No significant difference in range of motion and segmental stiffness among the tricortical iliac crest bone graft, meshed titanium Harms cage, and PDLLA-cage could be determined. The Resorbon cage significantly (P < 0.05) decreased range of motion and increased stiffness in rotation and flexion in comparisonto all tested implants and the intact motion segment. An additional anterior plate significantly (P < 0.05) decreased range of motion and increased stiffness in flexion and extension. CONCLUSION: In this study, bioabsorbable cages demonstrated biomechanical in vitro properties equal or superior to metallic cages. From the biomechanical point of view, bioabsorbable cages, especially the Resorbon cage, may be a viable alternative to current metallic interbody cage devices. However, animal experimental in vivo evaluation of bioabsorbable cervical spine interbody fusion cages still has to be performed.
