Study Design. Cadaveric human and bovine lumbar spine models simulating the acute postoperative period were used to compare the biomechanical properties of two designs of intervertebral body threaded fusion cages. The instrumented spines were compared with intact spines and with spines with resected posterior elements, representing a revision case. Objective. To determine the relative biomechanical performance of these competing devices. Summary of Background Data. These cages are currently under clinical investigation, and basic biomechanical data are needed. Methods. Insertion torques and maximum pushout loads were measured for each cage. Intact spines, posteriorly instrumented spines (posterior lumbar interbody fusion), and spines with resected posterior elements were loaded in axial compression, flexion and extension bending, and axial torsion. Stiffness comparisons were made between the different configurations. Results. Insertion torques and pushout loads were similar for the cages. Both cages significantly increased stiffnesses above those of the intact spines and the resected spines. The BAK‐instrumented spines were more stiff in axial compression, while the Threaded Interbody Fusion Device spines were more stiff in extension. Conclusions. This study revealed the two cages to have similar biomechanical characteristics immediately after posterior insertion and warrant further clinical studies.
[1]
R. B. Cloward.
Lesions of the intervertebral disks and their treatment by interbody fusion methods. The painful disk.
,
1963,
Clinical orthopaedics and related research.
[2]
A. U. Daniels,et al.
Distraction and compression loads enhance spine torsional stiffness.
,
1994,
Journal of biomechanics.
[3]
D N Kunz,et al.
Pedicle Screw Pullout Strength: Correlation with Insertional Torque
,
1993,
Spine.
[4]
R Vanderby,et al.
A multi-degree of freedom system for biomechanical testing.
,
1994,
Journal of biomechanical engineering.
[5]
H. Briggs,et al.
CHIP FUSION OF THE LOW BACK FOLLOWING EXPLORATION OF THE SPINAL CANAL
,
1944
.
[6]
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.
[7]
B. Cunningham,et al.
1989 Volvo Award in Basic Science: Device-Related Osteoporosis with Spinal Instrumentation
,
1989,
Spine.
[8]
M. Asher,et al.
The Effects of Implant Stiffness on the Bypassed Bone Mineral Density and Facet Fusion Stiffness of the Canine Spine
,
1994,
Spine.
[9]
G. Bagby.
Arthrodesis by the distraction-compression method using a stainless steel implant.
,
1988,
Orthopedics.