Biomechanical evaluation of immediate stability with rectangular versus cylindrical interbody cages in stabilization of the lumbar spine
<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Recent cadaver studies show stability against axial rotation with a cylindrical cage is marginally superior to a rectangular cage. The purpose of this biomechanical study in cadaver spine was to evaluate the stability of a new rectan...
Main Authors: | , , , , |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
BMC
2002-10-01
|
Series: | BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders |
Online Access: | http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2474/3/23 |
id |
doaj-0bc54de8a31d44a4a6c0844a5396b531 |
---|---|
record_format |
Article |
spelling |
doaj-0bc54de8a31d44a4a6c0844a5396b5312020-11-25T00:09:24ZengBMCBMC Musculoskeletal Disorders1471-24742002-10-01312310.1186/1471-2474-3-23Biomechanical evaluation of immediate stability with rectangular versus cylindrical interbody cages in stabilization of the lumbar spineWebb John KMulholland Robert CMehdian SMHSengupta Dilip KOhnmeiss Donna D<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Recent cadaver studies show stability against axial rotation with a cylindrical cage is marginally superior to a rectangular cage. The purpose of this biomechanical study in cadaver spine was to evaluate the stability of a new rectangular titanium cage design, which has teeth similar to the threads of cylindrical cages to engage the endplates.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Ten motion segments (five L2-3, five L4-5) were tested. From each cadaver spine, one motion segment was fixed with a pair of cylindrical cages (BAK, Sulzer Medica) and the other with paired rectangular cages (Rotafix, Corin Spinal). Each specimen was tested in an unconstrained state, after cage introduction and after additional posterior translaminar screw fixation. The range of motion (ROM) in flexion-extension, lateral bending, and rotation was tested in a materials testing machine, with +/- 5 Nm cyclical load over 10 sec per cycle; data from the third cycle was captured for analysis.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>ROM in all directions was significantly reduced (p < 0.05) with both types of cages. There was no significant difference in reduction of ROM in flexion-extension (p = 0.6) and rotation (p = 0.92) between the two cage groups, but stability in lateral bending was marginally superior with the rectangular cages (p = 0.11). Additional posterior fixation further reduced the ROM significantly (p < 0.05) in most directions in both cage groups, but did not show any difference between the cage groups.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>There was no significant difference in immediate stability in any direction between the threaded cylindrical cage and the new design of the rectangular cage with endplate teeth.</p> http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2474/3/23 |
collection |
DOAJ |
language |
English |
format |
Article |
sources |
DOAJ |
author |
Webb John K Mulholland Robert C Mehdian SMH Sengupta Dilip K Ohnmeiss Donna D |
spellingShingle |
Webb John K Mulholland Robert C Mehdian SMH Sengupta Dilip K Ohnmeiss Donna D Biomechanical evaluation of immediate stability with rectangular versus cylindrical interbody cages in stabilization of the lumbar spine BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders |
author_facet |
Webb John K Mulholland Robert C Mehdian SMH Sengupta Dilip K Ohnmeiss Donna D |
author_sort |
Webb John K |
title |
Biomechanical evaluation of immediate stability with rectangular versus cylindrical interbody cages in stabilization of the lumbar spine |
title_short |
Biomechanical evaluation of immediate stability with rectangular versus cylindrical interbody cages in stabilization of the lumbar spine |
title_full |
Biomechanical evaluation of immediate stability with rectangular versus cylindrical interbody cages in stabilization of the lumbar spine |
title_fullStr |
Biomechanical evaluation of immediate stability with rectangular versus cylindrical interbody cages in stabilization of the lumbar spine |
title_full_unstemmed |
Biomechanical evaluation of immediate stability with rectangular versus cylindrical interbody cages in stabilization of the lumbar spine |
title_sort |
biomechanical evaluation of immediate stability with rectangular versus cylindrical interbody cages in stabilization of the lumbar spine |
publisher |
BMC |
series |
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders |
issn |
1471-2474 |
publishDate |
2002-10-01 |
description |
<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Recent cadaver studies show stability against axial rotation with a cylindrical cage is marginally superior to a rectangular cage. The purpose of this biomechanical study in cadaver spine was to evaluate the stability of a new rectangular titanium cage design, which has teeth similar to the threads of cylindrical cages to engage the endplates.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Ten motion segments (five L2-3, five L4-5) were tested. From each cadaver spine, one motion segment was fixed with a pair of cylindrical cages (BAK, Sulzer Medica) and the other with paired rectangular cages (Rotafix, Corin Spinal). Each specimen was tested in an unconstrained state, after cage introduction and after additional posterior translaminar screw fixation. The range of motion (ROM) in flexion-extension, lateral bending, and rotation was tested in a materials testing machine, with +/- 5 Nm cyclical load over 10 sec per cycle; data from the third cycle was captured for analysis.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>ROM in all directions was significantly reduced (p < 0.05) with both types of cages. There was no significant difference in reduction of ROM in flexion-extension (p = 0.6) and rotation (p = 0.92) between the two cage groups, but stability in lateral bending was marginally superior with the rectangular cages (p = 0.11). Additional posterior fixation further reduced the ROM significantly (p < 0.05) in most directions in both cage groups, but did not show any difference between the cage groups.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>There was no significant difference in immediate stability in any direction between the threaded cylindrical cage and the new design of the rectangular cage with endplate teeth.</p> |
url |
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2474/3/23 |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT webbjohnk biomechanicalevaluationofimmediatestabilitywithrectangularversuscylindricalinterbodycagesinstabilizationofthelumbarspine AT mulhollandrobertc biomechanicalevaluationofimmediatestabilitywithrectangularversuscylindricalinterbodycagesinstabilizationofthelumbarspine AT mehdiansmh biomechanicalevaluationofimmediatestabilitywithrectangularversuscylindricalinterbodycagesinstabilizationofthelumbarspine AT senguptadilipk biomechanicalevaluationofimmediatestabilitywithrectangularversuscylindricalinterbodycagesinstabilizationofthelumbarspine AT ohnmeissdonnad biomechanicalevaluationofimmediatestabilitywithrectangularversuscylindricalinterbodycagesinstabilizationofthelumbarspine |
_version_ |
1725412042084450304 |