Influence of a dynamic stabilisation system on load bearing of a bridged disc: an in vitro study of intradiscal pressure.

In recent years, non-fusion implants to stabilise the lumbar spine have become more and more popular. However, little is known on the load bearing of such dynamic stabilisation systems. In order to investigate the load bearing of discs bridged with rigid and dynamic stabilisation systems, six lumbar cadaver spines were mounted in a spine tester and loaded with pure moments in the three main motion planes. Four different states of the specimens were studied: intact, destabilised, stabilisation with a Dynesys and stabilisation with an internal fixator. Intradiscal pressure (IDP) measurements were used to assess the load bearing of the bridged disc. In the neutral unloaded position, there were small but not significant differences in disc pressure for the four states of the treated disc (P>0.05). Concerning the disc pressure during the course of loading, both the Dynesys and internal fixator did significantly reduce the pressure change from neutral to extension in comparison to the intact state (-0.05, -0.04 and +0.24 MPa, respectively) (P<0.05). Compared to the intact state, there was no significant pressure change from neutral to flexion (0.14, 0.15 and 0.18 MPa, respectively) (P>0.05). The devices apparently eliminated the pressure change from neutral to lateral bending (Dynesys 0.01 MPa, Fixator 0.01 MPa and intact 0.24 MPa), but due to large variations in the intact and defect states the differences were not significant (P>0.05). In axial rotation, the pressure change for the internal fixator was reduced compared to the intact state; however, the change was only significant in left axial rotation (P<0.05). The Dynesys showed no significant differences (P>0.05) in axial rotation. No changes in IDP were seen in the adjacent discs for either the Dynesys or the internal fixator. Our results showed that the IDPs for both devices were similar, but altered compared to the intact disc.

Dynamic stabilization of the lumbar spine and its effects on adjacent segments: an in vitro experiment.

In recent years, nonfusion stabilization of the lumbar spine has gained more and more popularity. These nonfusion systems intend to maintain or restore the intersegmental motions to magnitudes of the intact spine and have no negative effects on the segments adjacent to the stabilized one. This study investigated the DYNESYS, a dynamic nonfusion system, which is designed to stabilize the bridged segments while maintaining the disc and the facet joints. To determine the magnitude of stabilization and the effect of the stabilization on the adjacent segment, six lumbar cadaver spines were fixed in a spine tester and loaded with pure moments in the three main motion planes. For each spine, four different stages were tested: intact, defect of the middle segment, fixation with the DYNESYS, and fixation with the internal fixator. Intersegmental motions were measured at all levels. For the bridged segment, the DYNESYS stabilized the spine and was more flexible than the internal fixator. This difference between the internal fixator and the DYNESYS was most pronounced in extension (P < 0.05), with the DYNESYS restoring the motion back to the level of the intact spine. The motion in the adjacent segments was not influenced by either stabilization method. Our results suggest that the DYNESYS provides substantial stability in case of degenerative spinal pathologies and can therefore be considered as an alternative method to fusion surgery in these indications while the motion segment is preserved.

Does anterolateral cage insertion enhance immediate stabilization of the functional spinal unit? A biomechanical investigation.

STUDY DESIGN: The three-dimensional flexibility of six human lumbar functional spinal units was measured after the anterolateral insertion of an interbody cage. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether an interbody cage inserted from an anterolateral direction stabilizes the spine with respect to the intact state and to compare the finding with that from the same cage inserted from an anterior direction. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Several biomechanical studies have shown that interbody cages do not stabilize the spine in extension. It is suspected that this may be caused by the destruction of the anterior longitudinal ligament and anterior anulus fibrosus. METHODS: Six human cadaveric lumbar functional spinal units were tested under pure moments of flexion, extension, bilateral axial rotation, and bilateral lateral bending to a maximum of 10 Nm. The relative intervertebral motions were measured by an optoelectronic camera system with the spinal units in the intact condition, after discectomy, after anterolateral interbody cage stabilization, and with additional translaminar screw fixation. The implant used was a central, porous, contoured implant with endplate fit. The results were compared with those of a previous study, which used the same implant inserted from an anterior direction. RESULTS: The anterolateral cage insertion significantly decreased the motion in comparison with the intact situation in flexion and lateral bending, but not in extension or axial rotation. No differences were found between the anterior and anterolateral insertion approaches in flexion or extension, but differences were observed in axial rotation and lateral bending, in which the anterolateral approach resulted in more motion. Additional translaminar screw fixation reduced motion to below intact levels in all loading directions. None of the surgical procedures introduced asymmetrical behavior. CONCLUSIONS: Anterolateral cage insertion did not stabilize the spine in extension or axial rotation and was not different from the anterior approach in flexion and extension. Additional translaminar screw fixation stabilized in all directions.

A comparative biomechanical investigation of anterior lumbar interbody cages: central and bilateral approaches.

BACKGROUND: Some biomechanical studies have been performed to evaluate the stabilization provided by interbody cages, but there are virtually no comparative data for the different designs. Furthermore, most investigators have used animal models, which may have led to different results due to morphological variation in the end plates and articular facets. The objectives of the current study were to evaluate whether two different anterior cage designs (BAK and SynCage) performed differently with respect to immediate stabilization of the spine, whether the cages stabilized the spine significantly compared with its intact condition, and whether the addition of supplementary translaminar screw fixation further stabilized the spine. Stabilization was defined as a reduction in motion after insertion of an implant. METHODS: Twelve lumbar functional spinal units from human cadavera were tested under pure moments of flexion, extension, bilateral axial rotation, and bilateral lateral bending to a maximum of ten newton-meters. The relative intervertebral motions were measured, with use of an optoelectronic camera system, under three test conditions: with the spine intact, after insertion of anterior interbody cages, and after insertion of anterior interbody cages supplemented with translaminar screw fixation. Six specimens were tested for each type of cage: a bilateral, porous, threaded cylinder (BAK) and a central, porous, contoured implant with end-plate fit (SynCage). RESULTS: The cages performed in a similar manner in all directions of loading, with no significant differences between the two designs. The cages significantly stabilized the spine compared with its intact condition in flexion, axial rotation, and lateral bending (the median value for motion was 40, 48, and 29 percent of the value for the intact condition, respectively; p = 0.002 for all three directions). Compared with the cages alone, translaminar screw fixation provided no additional stabilizing effect in these directions but it significantly increased the stability of the spine in extension (the median value for motion was 34 percent of the value with the cages alone; p = 0.013). CONCLUSIONS: There were no differences in the stabilization provided by the two different cage designs. Use of the cages alone stabilized the spine in all directions except extension, and use of supplementary translaminar screw fixation provided additional stabilization only in extension. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study demonstrated that interbody cages do not stabilize the lumbar spine in extension, and this observation was not altered by the use of substantially different designs. If the lack of stabilization in extension is a clinical problem, possible solutions include the avoidance of extension postoperatively or the use of supplementary fixation.

Interface shear strength of titanium implants with a sandblasted and acid-etched surface: a biomechanical study in the maxilla of miniature pigs.

The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the interface shear strength of unloaded titanium implants with a sandblasted and acid-etched (SLA) surface in the maxilla of miniature pigs. The two best documented surfaces in implant dentistry, the machined and the titanium plasma-sprayed (TPS) surfaces served as controls. After 4, 8, and 12 weeks of healing, removal torque testing was performed to evaluate the interface shear strength of each implant type. The results revealed statistically significant differences between the machined and the two rough titanium surfaces (p <.00001). The machined surface demonstrated mean removal torque values (RTV) between 0.13 and 0.26 Nm, whereas the RTV of the two rough surfaces ranged between 1.14 and 1.56 Nm. At 4 weeks of healing, the SLA implants yielded a higher mean RTV than the TPS implants (1.39 vs. 1. 14 Nm) without reaching statistical significance. At 8 and 12 weeks of healing, the two rough surfaces showed similar mean RTVs. The implant position also had a significant influence on removal torques for each implant type primarily owing to differences in density in the periimplant bone structure. It can be concluded that the interface shear strength of titanium implants is significantly influenced by their surface characteristics, since the machined titanium surface demonstrated significantly lower RTV in the maxilla of miniature pigs compared with the TPS and SLA surfaces.

Removal torque values of titanium implants in the maxilla of miniature pigs.

The purpose of this study was to compare side-by-side two different titanium screw-type implants in the maxillae of miniature pigs. The test implants had a machined and acid-etched surface (Osseotite) whereas the control implants were sandblasted and acid-etched (SLA). After 4, 8, and 12 weeks of healing, removal torque testing was performed to evaluate the shear strength of the bone-implant interface for both implant types. The results demonstrated significant differences between both implant types (P < .01). Osseotite implants revealed mean removal torque values (RTV) of 62.5 Ncm at 4 weeks, 87.6 Ncm at 8 weeks, and 95.7 Ncm at 12 weeks of healing. In contrast, the SLA implants demonstrated mean RTV of 109.6 Ncm, 196.7 Ncm, and 186.8 Ncm at corresponding healing periods. The mean RTV for SLA implants was 75% to 125% higher than for Osseotite implants up to 3 months of healing.

Two monoclonal antibodies that discriminate between allelic variants of human low density lipoprotein.

Human low density lipoprotein shows a genetic polymorphism, the so-called Ag-system. it consists of 5 pairs of allelic epitopes, x/y, al/d, c/g, t/z, and h/i, which are localized on apolipoprotein B. We have generated a large number of monoclonal antibodies against low density lipoprotein. Two of them, D2E1 and H11G3, recognize epitopes related to this genetic polymorphism. Direct ELISA and ELISA inhibition experiments with different low density lipoproteins of known phenotype showed that D2E1 is directed against the allelic epitope c and H11G3 against d. The two antibodies were used for the characterization of low density lipoprotein in sera from different blood donors and the results compared to those obtained by passive hemagglutination using human allotypic anti-sera. Sera from homo- or heterozygous donors (which display the relevant epitope) could be distinguished from the sera of homozygous donors (which lack the epitope) with the monoclonal antibodies described.