Bioabsorbable Poly-L-Lactic Acid Cages for Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Three-Year Follow-up Radiographic, Histologic, and Histomorphometric Analysis in Goats

Study Design. Long-term evaluation was performed for bioabsorbable poly-L-lactic acid cages in a goat interbody fusion model. Objective. To assess the radiographic, histologic, and histomorphometric characteristics of poly-L-lactic acid cages during 3 years of follow-up evaluation. Summary of Background Data. Failed cage fusions may be related to cage design and material in addition to the surgical technique used. To overcome material-related complications and to explore the potential benefits of bioabsorbable cages, poly-L-lactic acid cages have been designed. Methods. For this study, 36 Dutch milk goats underwent a lumbar interbody fusion procedure (L3–L4). Two types of custom-made cage devices were impacted with bone graft and implanted: poly-L-lactic acid cages (n = 30) and titanium cages (n = 6). Sequential harvesting of surgically managed motion segments (intervals: 3, 6, 12, 24, and 36 months) was performed for analysis. Results. In poly-L-lactic acid specimens, permanent interbody fusion could be achieved within 6 months after surgery with maintenance of cage height. Titanium specimens showed no interbody fusion within this period. Radiographic follow-up evaluation (6–36 months) showed interbody fusion in 86% (19/22) of poly-L-lactic acid specimens, as compared with 33% (2/6) of titanium specimens. After 36 months of implantation, in one half of the specimens, poly-L-lactic acid cages were completely absorbed. Bone histomorphometry showed complete bone remodeling after 2 years of follow-up evaluation. During the study period, no local or distant adverse histologic effects were observed. Conclusions. The current in vivo study showed that poly-L-lactic acid cage devices are feasible for lumbar interbody fusion. New poly-L-lactic acid cages designed for clinical practice might be a viable alternative to current nonabsorbable cage devices.

[1]  N. Yoganandan,et al.  Biomechanical Analysis of Thoracolumbar Interbody Constructs: How Important Is the Endplate? , 1996, Spine.

[2]  D. R. Sumner,et al.  Biologic Factors Affecting Spinal Fusion and Bone Regeneration , 1995, Spine.

[3]  D. C. Tunc In vivo degradation and biocompatability study of in vitro pre-degraded as-polymerized polylactide particles. , 1996, Biomaterials.

[4]  K. Kaneda,et al.  In vitro biomechanical investigation of the stability and stress-shielding effect of lumbar interbody fusion devices. , 2000, Journal of neurosurgery.

[5]  F W Cordewener,et al.  The future of biodegradable osteosyntheses. , 2000, Tissue engineering.

[6]  Martijn van Dijk,et al.  The Effect of Cage Stiffness on the Rate of Lumbar Interbody Fusion: An In Vivo Model Using Poly(L-Lactic Acid) and Titanium Cages , 2002, Spine.

[7]  P. McAfee,et al.  Laparoscopic fusion of the lumbar spine: minimally invasive spine surgery. A prospective multicenter study evaluating open and laparoscopic lumbar fusion. , 1999, Spine.

[8]  S. L. Griffith,et al.  Four-Year Follow-up Results of Lumbar Spine Arthrodesis Using the Bagby and Kuslich Lumbar Fusion Cage , 2000, Spine.

[9]  Hans Müller-Storz,et al.  Motion of threaded cages in posterior lumbar interbody fusion , 2000, European Spine Journal.

[10]  W C de Bruijn,et al.  Late degradation tissue response to poly(L-lactide) bone plates and screws. , 1995, Biomaterials.

[11]  D. R. Sumner,et al.  Biologic issues in lumbar spinal fusion. Introduction. 1995 Focus Issue Meeting on Fusion. , 1995, Spine.

[12]  K C Pani,et al.  Polylactic acid for surgical implants , 1966, Archives of surgery.

[13]  C. Klein,et al.  A simple method for preparing thin (10 microM) histological sections of undecalcified plastic embedded bone with implants. , 1988, Stain technology.

[14]  W. Jee,et al.  Integrated Bone Tissue Physiology: Anatomy and Physiology , 2001 .

[15]  C D Ray,et al.  Threaded Titanium Cages for Lumbar Interbody Fusions , 1997, Spine.

[16]  P. McAfee Interbody fusion cages in reconstructive operations on the spine. , 1999, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[17]  M van der Elst,et al.  [Biodegradable implants in fracture fixation: state of the art]. , 2000, Der Unfallchirurg.

[18]  C Lindqvist,et al.  A 5-year in vitro and in vivo study of the biodegradation of polylactide plates. , 1998, Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery : official journal of the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons.

[19]  P. McAfee,et al.  The biomechanical and histomorphometric properties of anterior lumbar fusions: a canine model. , 1988, Journal of spinal disorders.

[20]  B. Weiner,et al.  Lumbar Interbody Cages , 1998, Spine.

[21]  O. Böstman,et al.  Bioabsorbable fixation in orthopaedic surgery and traumatology. , 2000, Biomaterials.

[22]  O. Böstman,et al.  Osteoarthritis of the ankle after foreign-body reaction to absorbable pins and screws: a three- to nine-year follow-up study. , 1998, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[23]  P. Törmälä,et al.  Self‐Reinforced Absorbable Screws in the Fixation of Displaced Ankle Fractures: A Prospective Clinical Study of 152 Patients , 1992, Journal of orthopaedic trauma.

[24]  S. L. Griffith,et al.  Revision strategies for salvaging or improving failed cylindrical cages. , 1999, Spine.

[25]  G. Bagby Arthrodesis by the distraction-compression method using a stainless steel implant. , 1988, Orthopedics.

[26]  M. Aebi,et al.  Cages: designs and concepts , 2000, European Spine Journal.

[27]  D. Sengupta,et al.  Laparoscopic approach to L4-L5 for interbody fusion using BAK cages: experience in the first 58 cases. , 1999, Spine.

[28]  F. Quereshy,et al.  The efficacy of bioresorbable fixation in the repair of mandibular fractures: an animal study. , 2000, Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery : official journal of the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons.

[29]  P. Patka,et al.  Resorbierbare Implantate für Frakturfixierungen, aktueller Stand , 2000, Der Unfallchirurg.

[30]  T. Tullberg,et al.  Failure of a Carbon Fiber Implant: A Case Report , 1998, Spine.

[31]  E. Offerman,et al.  Methyl-methacrylate embedding of undecalcified rat bone and simultaneous staining for alkaline and tartrate resistant acid phosphatase. , 1993, Bone.

[32]  Y. Sauren,et al.  A new saw technique improves preparation of bone sections for light and electron microscopy. , 1994, Journal of applied biomaterials : an official journal of the Society for Biomaterials.

[33]  W. Anderson,et al.  Tetracycline labeling of bone in vivo , 2006, Calcified Tissue International.

[34]  A D Steffee,et al.  A Carbon Fiber Implant to Aid Interbody Lumbar Fusion: Two‐Year Clinical Results in the First 26 Patients , 1993, Spine.

[35]  O. Böstman,et al.  Late Foreign-Body Reaction to an Intraosseous Bioabsorbable Polylactic Acid Screw. A Case Report* , 1998, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[36]  T. Smit The use of a quadruped as an in vivo model for the study of the spine – biomechanical considerations , 2002, European Spine Journal.

[37]  R C Edwards,et al.  The fate of resorbable poly-L-lactic/polyglycolic acid (LactoSorb) bone fixation devices in orthognathic surgery. , 2001, Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery : official journal of the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons.

[38]  O. Böstman Osteoarthritis of the ankle after foreign-body reaction to absorbable pins and screws , 1998 .

[39]  M. Aebi,et al.  Effect of implant design and endplate preparation on the compressive strength of interbody fusion constructs. , 2000, Spine.

[40]  S. Perren,et al.  Tissue response and in vivo degradation of selected polyhydroxyacids: polylactides (PLA), poly(3-hydroxybutyrate) (PHB), and poly(3-hydroxybutyrate-co-3-hydroxyvalerate) (PHB/VA). , 1993, Journal of biomedical materials research.

[41]  Y Kim,et al.  Prediction of Mechanical Behaviors at Interfaces Between Bone and Two Interbody Cages of Lumbar Spine Segments , 2001, Spine.

[42]  LTC William R. Klemme,et al.  Lumbar Sagittal Contour After Posterior Interbody Fusion: Threaded Devices Alone Versus Vertical Cages Plus Posterior Instrumentation , 2001, Spine.

[43]  W. Hayes,et al.  Bone compressive strength: the influence of density and strain rate. , 1976, Science.

[44]  B. Cunningham,et al.  Interbody Lumbar Fusion Using a Carbon Fiber Cage Implant Versus Allograft Bone: An Investigational Study in the Spanish Goat , 1994, Spine.

[45]  P. Törmälä,et al.  Treatment of subcapital femoral neck fractures with bioabsorbable or metallic screw fixation. A preliminary report. , 2000, Annales chirurgiae et gynaecologiae.

[46]  R. Delamarter,et al.  Distractive Properties of a Threaded Interbody Fusion Device: An In Vivo Model , 1996, Spine.

[47]  S. L. Griffith,et al.  The Bagby and Kuslich Method of Lumbar Interbody Fusion: History, Techniques, and 2‐Year Follow‐up Results of a United States Prospective, Multicenter Trial , 1998, Spine.

[48]  J. Brantigan,et al.  Lumbar interbody fusion using the Brantigan I/F cage for posterior lumbar interbody fusion and the variable pedicle screw placement system: two-year results from a Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption clinical trial. , 2000, Spine.

[49]  B. Cunningham,et al.  Osteogenic protein versus autologous interbody arthrodesis in the sheep thoracic spine. A comparative endoscopic study using the Bagby and Kuslich interbody fusion device. , 1999, Spine.