Pullout Test With Three Lumbar Interbody Fusion Cages

Study Design. In vitro biomechanical testing was performed on 12 cadaveric human lumbar spines. Objective. To determine the initial dislocation resistance, as quantified by the pullout force of three different cage designs. Summary of Background Data. Interbody cage devices frequently are used as stand-alone cages in the surgical treatment of degenerative conditions in the lumbar spine. In contrast to the wide clinical acceptance of interbody fusion cages, there are only a few biomechanical studies of posterior pullout trials. Methods. Cylindrical threaded cages (Ray TFC Surgical Dynamics), bullet-shaped cages (Stryker), and newly designed rectangular titanium cages with an endplate anchorage device (Marquardt) were used for posterior interbody implants. For each device, the pullout test was performed in four specimens on both sides (L3–L4). Results. In the pullout test, the Stryker cages required a median pullout force of 130 N (minimum, 100 N; maximum, 220 N), as compared with the higher pullout force of the Marquardt cages (median, 605 N; minimum, 450 N; maximum, 680 N), and the Ray cages (median, 945 N; minimum, 125 N; maximum, 2230 N). Conclusions. Differences in pullout resistance were noted depending on the cage design. A cage design with threads or a hook device provides superior stability, as compared with ridges. The initial pullout resistance was highest for the Ray cages and lowest for the Stryker cages.

[1]  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.

[2]  G. Bagby,et al.  Cervical vertebral interbody fusion in the horse: a comparative study of bovine xenografts and autografts supported by stainless steel baskets. , 1984, American journal of veterinary research.

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

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

[5]  Intercorporal bone graft in spinal fusion after disc removal. , 1946, Surgery, gynecology & obstetrics.

[6]  A. Thambyah,et al.  Influence of PLIF Cage Size on Lumbar Spine Stability , 2000, Spine.

[7]  R. B. Cloward The treatment of ruptured lumbar intervertebral discs by vertebral body fusion. I. Indications, operative technique, after care. , 1953, Journal of neurosurgery.

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

[9]  R. Hacker Comparison of Interbody Fusion Approaches for Disabling Low Back Pain , 1997, Spine.

[10]  Thomas R. Oxland,et al.  Interbody cage stabilisation in the lumbar spine: biomechanical evaluation of cage design, posterior instrumentation and bone density , 1998 .

[11]  W. Mercer Spondylolisthesis: With a Description of a New Method of Operative Treatment and Notes of Ten Cases , 1936, Edinburgh medical journal.

[12]  Spinal Interbody Fusions: A Review, Featuring New Generation Techniques , 1997 .

[13]  J. Finkelstein,et al.  Early Retropulsion of Titanium-Threaded Cages After Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Report of Two Cases , 2001, Spine.

[14]  R. Watkins,et al.  Comparison of Disc Space Heights after Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion , 1989, Spine.

[15]  D N Kunz,et al.  Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Biomechanical Comparison, Including a New Threaded Cage , 1997, Spine.

[16]  J. Brantigan,et al.  A Carbon Fiber Implant to Aid Interbody Lumbar Fusion: Mechanical Testing , 1991, Spine.

[17]  A. Rossier Letter to the Editor , 1986, Paraplegia.

[18]  T A Zdeblick,et al.  Biomechanical Comparison of Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Cages , 1997, Spine.

[19]  L. Claes,et al.  New in vivo measurements of pressures in the intervertebral disc in daily life. , 1999, Spine.

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

[21]  T. Lund,et al.  Biomechanics of stand-alone cages and cages in combination with posterior fixation: a literature review , 2000, European Spine Journal.

[22]  John R. Johnson,et al.  Management of Iatrogenic Spinal Stenosis Complicating Placement of a Fusion Cage: A Case Report , 1996, Spine.

[23]  J Soini,et al.  Lumbar disc space heights after external fixation and anterior interbody fusion: a prospective 2-year follow-up of clinical and radiographic results. , 1994, Journal of spinal disorders.

[24]  M. Aebi,et al.  Biomechanical stability of five stand-alone anterior lumbar interbody fusion constructs , 2000, European Spine Journal.