Interbody Device Shape and Size Are Important to Strengthen the Vertebra–Implant Interface

Study Design. An in vitro cadaveric study to compare compressive failure load, strength, and stiffness of the implant–vertebra interface. Objectives. To determine the effect of cage shape (kidney, cloverleaf, or oval) and cage surface area on endplate failure strength and secondly to determine the extent and pattern of trabecular failure adjacent to an interbody device. Summary of Background Data. Recent studies indicate that the posterolateral and peripheral regions of the endplate are stronger than the central. Current implants are not designed to take advantage of these stronger regions of the endplate. The zone of trabecular failure that results from interbody device subsidence has not been reported extensively in the literature. Methods. Uniaxial compression testing with unrestricted rotation was carried out on the superior endplates of 48 thoracolumbar (T9–L2) vertebrae with 1 of 3 shaped indentors covering 20% or 40% of the endplate area. Failure load, failure strength, and stiffness were compared. Quantitative computed tomography scans were carried out before and following indentation tests to identify areas of trabecular densification that indicate localized failure. Results. The cloverleaf-shaped indentors resulted in significantly higher (P < 0.001) failure loads (by >45%), strength (>49%), and construct stiffness (>35%) for both the 20% and 40% cross-sectional area sizes. Trabecular bone failure occurred in a semielliptical zone underlying the interbody devices, leaving the endplate and underlying cancellous bone intact. Conclusions. The cloverleaf-shaped indentor displayed an improved strength and stiffness profile whencompared to oval or kidney-shaped indentors of similar surface areas.

[1]  Chang-Hoon Jeon,et al.  Effect of Endplate Conditions and Bone Mineral Density on the Compressive Strength of the Graft–Endplate Interface in Anterior Cervical Spine Fusion , 2001, Spine.

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

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

[4]  L. Claes,et al.  Resistance of the Lumbar Spine Against Axial Compression Forces after Implantation of Three Different Posterior Lumbar Interbody Cages , 2001, Acta Neurochirurgica.

[5]  T. Zdeblick,et al.  Interbody Cage Devices , 2003, Spine.

[6]  T. Washio,et al.  An Experimental Study on the Interface Strength Between Titanium Mesh Cage and Vertebra in Reference to Vertebral Bone Mineral Density , 2001, Spine.

[7]  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.

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

[9]  M M Panjabi,et al.  Human Lumbar Vertebrae: Quantitative Three-Dimensional Anatomy , 1992, Spine.

[10]  M. Panjabi,et al.  An Analysis of Errors in Kinematic Parameters Associated with in Vivo Functional Radiographs , 1992, Spine.

[11]  M M Panjabi,et al.  Thoracic Human Vertebrae Quantitative Three‐Dimensional Anatomy , 1991, Spine.

[12]  A. Tsantrizos,et al.  Segmental Stability and Compressive Strength of Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Implants , 2000, Spine.

[13]  L. Nolte,et al.  Interbody cage stabilisation in the lumbar spine: biomechanical evaluation of cage design, posterior instrumentation and bone density. , 1998, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[14]  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.

[15]  C. Fisher,et al.  The effects of bone density and disc degeneration on the structural property distributions in the lower lumbar vertebral endplates , 2002, Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society.

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

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

[18]  W C Hutton,et al.  Anterior lumbar interbody fusion using a barbell-shaped cage: a biomechanical comparison. , 2001, Journal of spinal disorders.