Segmental stability and compressive strength of posterior lumbar interbody fusion implants.

STUDY DESIGN: Human cadaveric study on initial segmental stability and compressive strength of posterior lumbar interbody fusion implants. OBJECTIVES: To compare the initial segmental stability and compressive strength of a posterior lumbar interbody fusion construct using a new cortical bone spacer machined from allograft to that of titanium threaded and nonthreaded posterior lumbar interbody fusion cages, tested as stand-alone and with supplemental pedicle screw fixation. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Cages were introduced to overcome the limitations of conventional allografts. Radiodense cage materials impede radiographic assessment of the fusion, however, and may cause stress shielding of the graft. METHODS: Multisegmental specimens were tested intact, with posterior lumbar interbody fusion implants inserted into the L4/L5 interbody space and with supplemental pedicle screw fixation. Three posterior lumbar interbody fusion implant constructs (Ray Threaded Fusion Cage, Contact Fusion Cage, and PLIF Allograft Spacer) were tested nondestructively in axial rotation, flexion-extension, and lateral bending. The implant-specimen constructs then were isolated and compressed to failure. Changes in the neutral zone, range of motion, yield strength, and ultimate compressive strength were analyzed. RESULTS: None of the stand-alone implant constructs reduced the neutral zone. Supplemental pedicle screw fixation decreased the neutral zone in flexion-extension and lateral bending. Stand-alone implant constructs decreased the range of motion in flexion and lateral bending. Differences in the range of motion between stand-alone cage constructs were found in flexion and extension (marginally significant). Supplemental posterior fixation further decreased the range of motion in all loading directions with no differences between implant constructs. The Contact Fusion Cage and PLIF Allograft Spacer constructs had a higher ultimate compressive strength than the Ray Threaded Fusion Cage. CONCLUSIONS: The biomechanical data did not suggest any implant construct to behave superiorly either as a stand-alone or with supplemental posterior fixation. The PLIF Allograph Spacer is biomechanically equivalent to titanium cages but is devoid of the deficiencies associated with other cage technologies. Therefore, the PLIF Allograft Spacer is a valid alternative to conventional cages.

Effect of implant design and endplate preparation on the compressive strength of interbody fusion constructs.

STUDY DESIGN: A human cadaveric study on the compressive strength of different lumbar interbody fusion implants and endplate preparation techniques was performed. OBJECTIVES: To assess the axial compressive strength of an implant with peripheral endplate contact as opposed to full surface contact, and to assess whether removal of the central bony endplate affects the axial compressive strength. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The compressive strength of interbody fusion constructs has been compared between implants and bone grafts. Neither implant design nor endplate preparation has been shown to affect strength. Removal of the central bony endplate for bone grafts was noted to improve graft incorporation but also to facilitate subsidence. METHODS: A total of 44 vertebrae were tested in four experimental groups by combining two interbody implants (full-surface vs peripheral surface support) with two endplate preparation techniques (intact bony endplate vs removal of the central bony endplate). Specimens were tested to ultimate compressive failure using a 50 N/second ramped load. Yield strength and ultimate compressive strength were compared between groups using two-factor analysis of covariance. A P value less than 0.05 was considered significant. Stepwise linear regressions assessed the predictive power of age, bone mineral content, and the implant's normalized endplate coverage on yield strength and ultimate compressive strength. RESULTS: Neither implant design nor endplate preparation technique affected yield strength or ultimate compressive strength. Age, bone mineral content, and the normalized endplate coverage were strong predictors of yield strength (P < 0. 0001; r2 = 0.459) and ultimate compressive strength (P < 0.0001; r2 = 0.510). CONCLUSIONS: An implant with only peripheral support resting on the apophyseal ring offers axial mechanical strength similar to that of an implant with full support. Neither supplementary struts nor a solid implant face has any additional mechanical advantage, but reduces graft-host contact area. Removal of the central bony endplate is recommended because it does not affect the compressive strength and promotes graft incorporation.

Cages: designs and concepts.

Many new interbody fusion cages have been recently developed, but clinical studies analyzing fusion outcome are still scarce. Radiological methods to assess fusion are not standardized and are often unreliable. Cages have been stated to provide good segmental distraction, provide axial load support and reduce segmental mobility, but there have been reports of failed fusions because of implant failure. This paper presents a critical opinion on current cage designs, stressing their clinical and biomechanical implications. Threaded cage designs compromise endplate integrity, and when placed in pairs have inherent limitations for distraction. Non-threaded cage designs usually preserve endplate integrity, but geometry may be inadequate to provide a good surface match to the endplate. The concept of an open frame type cage is believed to have biological advantages, because large graft volumes inside the cage can be in direct contact with host bone. Cadaveric tests suggest that open frame constructs have compressive strength similar to that of full surface contact cages. Restoration of segmental height, sagittal balance and increased neuroforaminal clearance are all functions of disc space distraction. The effect of cage instrumentation on axial load distribution, however, is not well understood. Biomechanical experiments strongly suggest supplementing cage instrumentation with posterior fixation, to achieve a marked increase in initial segmental stability. In the absence of gross segmental instability, micromotion at the host graft interface may still exist. As a result, fusion will never occur, instead a pseudoarthrosis will develop. For monitoring fusion, the use of non-metallic cages has distinct advantages, because no metal artifacts will disturb radiological assessment.

Biomechanical stability of five stand-alone anterior lumbar interbody fusion constructs.

Anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) cages are expected to reduce segmental mobility. Current ALIF cages have different designs, suggesting differences in initial stability. The objective of this study was to compare the effect of different stand-alone ALIF cage constructs and cage-related features on initial segmental stability. Human multisegmental specimens were tested intact and with an instrumented L3/4 disc level. Five different ALIF cages (I/F, BAK, TIS, SynCage, and ScrewCage) were tested non-destructively in axial rotation, flexion/extension and lateral bending. A cage 'pull-out' concluded testing. Changes in neutral zone (NZ) and range of motion (ROM) were analyzed. Cage-related measurements normalized to vertebral dimensions were used to predict NZ and ROM. No cage construct managed to reduce NZ. The BAK and TIS cages had the largest NZ increase in flexion/extension and lateral bending, respectively. Cages did reduce ROM in all loading directions. The TIS cage was the least effective in reducing the ROM in lateral bending. Cages with sharp teeth had higher 'pull-out' forces. Antero-posterior and mediolateral cage dimensions, cage height and wedge angle were found to influence initial stability. The performance of stand-alone ALIF cage constructs generally increased the NZ in any loading direction, suggesting potential directions of initial segmental instability that may lead to permanent deformity. Differences between cages in flexion/extension and lateral bending NZ are attributed to the severity of geometrical cage-endplate surface mismatch. Stand-alone cage constructs reduced ROM effectively, but the residual ROM present indicates the presence of micromotion at the cage-endplate interface.