The importance of the endplate for interbody cages in the lumbar spine

Intervertebral cages in the lumbar spine represent an advancement in spinal fusion to relieve low back pain. Different implant designs require different endplate preparations, but the question of to what extent preservation of the bony endplate might be necessary remains unanswered. In this study the effects of endplate properties and their distribution on stresses in a lumbar functional spinal unit were investigated using finite-element analyses. Three-dimensional finite-element models of L2-L3 with and without a cage were used. An anterior approach for a monobloc, box-shaped cage was modelled. The results showed that inserting a cage increased the maximum von Mises stress and changed the load distribution in the adjacent structures. A harder endplate led to increased concentration of the stress peaks and high stresses were propagated further into the vertebral body, into areas that would usually not experience such stresses. This may cause structural changes and provide an explanation for the damage occurring to the underlying bone, as well as for the subsequent subsidence of the cage. Stress distributions were similar for the two endplate preparation techniques of complete endplate preservation and partial endplate removal from the centre. It can be concluded that cages should be designed such that they rely on the strong peripheral part of the endplate for support and offer a large volume for the graft. Furthermore, the adjacent vertebrae should be assessed to ensure that they show sufficient density in the peripheral regions to tolerate the altered load transfer following cage insertion until an adequate adaptation to the new loading situation is produced by the remodelling process.

[1]  A. Freemont,et al.  End-Plate Displacement During Compression of Lumbar Vertebra-Disc-Vertebra Segments and the Mechanism of Failure , 1993, Spine.

[2]  Snyder,et al.  Vertebral structure and strength in vivo and in vitro. Discussion , 1993 .

[3]  V K Goel,et al.  A combined finite element and optimization investigation of lumbar spine mechanics with and without muscles. , 1993, Spine.

[4]  S. Majumdar,et al.  Impact of spatial resolution on the prediction of trabecular architecture parameters. , 1998, Bone.

[5]  S. Agazzi,et al.  Posterior lumbar interbody fusion with cages: an independent review of 71 cases. , 1999, Journal of neurosurgery.

[6]  Sally Roberts,et al.  Does the thickness of the vertebral subchondral bone reflect the composition of the intervertebral disc? , 2005, European Spine Journal.

[7]  Stephen J. Ferguson,et al.  Factors influencing stresses in the lumbar spine after the insertion of intervertebral cages: finite element analysis , 2003, European Spine Journal.

[8]  J. van Limbeek,et al.  Anterior lumbar interbody fusion with threaded fusion cages and autologous bone grafts , 2000, European Spine Journal.

[9]  R. Mulholland Cages: outcome and complications , 2000, European Spine Journal.

[10]  L. Claes,et al.  Stabilizing effect of posterior lumbar interbody fusion cages before and after cyclic loading. , 1999, Journal of neurosurgery.

[11]  Hutton Wc,et al.  Do bending, twisting, and diurnal fluid changes in the disc affect the propensity to prolapse? A viscoelastic finite element model , 1996 .

[12]  Thomas R. Oxland,et al.  Mapping the Structural Properties of the Lumbosacral Vertebral Endplates , 2001, Spine.

[13]  J. R. Parsons,et al.  Mechanics of interbody spinal fusion. Analysis of critical bone graft area. , 1993, Spine.

[14]  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.

[15]  L. Perlick,et al.  Radiographic characteristics on conventional radiographs after posterior lumbar interbody fusion: comparative study between radiotranslucent and radiopaque cages. , 2001, Journal of spinal disorders.

[16]  A. Leblanc,et al.  Regional Variation in Vertebral Bone Density and Trabecular Architecture Are Influenced by Osteoarthritic Change and Osteoporosis , 1997, Spine.

[17]  A Odgaard,et al.  Three-dimensional methods for quantification of cancellous bone architecture. , 1997, Bone.

[18]  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.

[19]  M. Grynpas,et al.  Inhomogeneity of human vertebral cancellous bone: systematic density and structure patterns inside the vertebral body. , 2001, Bone.

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

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

[22]  N. Langrana,et al.  Finite element analysis of vertebral body mechanics with a nonlinear microstructural model for the trabecular core. , 1999, Journal of biomechanical engineering.

[23]  W. Edwards,et al.  Structural features and thickness of the vertebral cortex in the thoracolumbar spine. , 2001, Spine.

[24]  L. Mosekilde,et al.  Biomechanical competence of vertebral trabecular bone in relation to ash density and age in normal individuals. , 1987, Bone.

[25]  T R Oxland,et al.  The effect of nucleotomy on lumbar spine mechanics in compression and shear loading. , 2001, Spine.

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

[27]  S. Majumdar,et al.  Power Spectral Analysis of Vertebral Trabecular Bone Structure from Radiographs: Orientation Dependence and Correlation with Bone Mineral Density and Mechanical Properties , 1998, Calcified Tissue International.

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

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

[30]  R. Huiskes,et al.  Stress distribution changes in bovine vertebrae just below the endplate after sustained loading. , 2001, Clinical biomechanics.

[31]  A. M. Ahmed,et al.  Stress analysis of the lumbar disc-body unit in compression. A three-dimensional nonlinear finite element study. , 1984, Spine.

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

[33]  P. A. Cripton,et al.  Compressive strength of interbody cages in the lumbar spine: the effect of cage shape, posterior instrumentation and bone density , 1998, European Spine Journal.

[34]  H Yamamoto,et al.  Mechanical augmentation of the vertebral body by calcium phosphate cement injection , 2001, Journal of orthopaedic science : official journal of the Japanese Orthopaedic Association.

[35]  W C Hayes,et al.  Load Sharing Between the Shell and Centrum in the Lumbar Vertebral Body , 1997, Spine.

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

[37]  A Shirazi-Adl,et al.  Mechanical Response of a Lumbar Motion Segment in Axial Torque Alone and Combined with Compression , 1986, Spine.