No abstract

We performed a biomechanical study on human cadaver spines to determine the effect of three different interbody cage designs, with and without posterior instrumentation, on the three-dimensional flexibility of the spine. Six lumbar functional spinal units for each cage type were subjected to multidirectional flexibility testing in four different configurations: intact, with interbody cages from a posterior approach, with additional posterior instrumentation, and with cross-bracing. The tests involved the application of flexion and extension, bilateral axial rotation and bilateral lateral bending pure moments. The relative movements between the vertebrae were recorded by an optoelectronic camera system. We found no significant difference in the stabilising potential of the three cage designs. The cages used alone significantly decreased the intervertebral movement in flexion and lateral bending, but no stabilisation was achieved in either extension or axial rotation. For all types of cage, the greatest stabilisation in flexion and extension and lateral bending was achieved by the addition of posterior transpedicular instrumentation. The addition of cross-bracing to the posterior instrumentation had a stabilising effect on axial rotation. The bone density of the adjacent vertebral bodies was a significant factor for stabilisation in flexion and extension and in lateral bending.

IntroductionInterbody cages are porous implants which are placed between two vertebral bodies to facilitate an intervertebral fusion. The concept for these cages was described first by Bagby [3] along with initial animal evaluation [10]. Clinical trials of these cages began in 1991 for degenerative problems of the lumbar spine. Early clinical results and the broader results of multicentre clinical trials have been encouraging [21,30]. However, some investigators have had less success [19,25]. Furthermore, recent studies have found that fusion assessment with these cages is virtually impossible with X-rays or CT scans [4,15], thereby putting into doubt some of the definitive fusion results from the clinical studies. All in all, the effectiveness of stand-alone interbody cages has been questioned, with some investigators claiming that supplementary posterior fixation is required to produce better long-term clinical results [6,25].Abstract Interbody cages in the lumbar spine have met with mixed success in clinical studies. This has led many investigators to supplement cages with posterior instrumentation. The objective of this literature review is to address the mechanics of interbody cage fixation in the lumbar spine with respect to three-dimensional stabilization and the strength of the cage-vertebra interface. The effect of supplementary posterior fixation is reviewed. Only three-dimensional stabilization evaluations in human cadaveric models are included. These studies involve the application of different loads to the spine and the measurement of vertebral motion in flexion-extension, axial rotation, and lateral bending. There are no published studies which detected any differences between different cage designs. However, it does seem that cages inserted from an anterior direction provide better stabilization to the spine than those inserted from a posterior direction. In general, anterior cages stabilize better than posterior cages in axial rotation and lateral bending. Cages from both directions stabilized well in flexion, but not in extension. Supplementary posterior fixation with pedicle or translaminar screws substantially improves the stabilization in all directions. The strength of the cage-vertebra interface from studies using human cadaveric specimens is also reviewed. The axial compressive strength of this interface is highly dependent upon vertebral body bone density. Other factors such as preservation of the subchondral bony end-plate and cage design are clearly less important in the compressive strength. Supplementary posterior instrumentation does not enhance substantially the interface strength in axial compression.

IntroductionPosterior lumbar intervertebral fusion (PLIF) was introduced to clinical practice in the mid-1940s independently by Jaslow [33] and by Cloward [14][15][16]. The theoretical bases of this procedure were outlined: mechanical stability is provided by the intervertebral fusion, the original disc height is restored and the intervertebral foramina are distracted. Lin et al. [38] postulated four biomechanical principles to get a high rate of fusion: preservation of the integrity of the posterior portion of the motion segment; partial preservation of the integrity of the cortical endplates; attempted maximal removal of disc material, especially the nucleus pulposus, as a potential source of chronic low back pain; and the use of several "unicortical peg grafts" as opposed to smaller "chips" or "strips" of bone [36]. These variables and others impact the clinical results Abstract One goal of interbody fusion is to increase the height of the degenerated disc space. Interbody cages in particular have been promoted with the claim that they can maintain the disc space better than other methods. There are many factors that can affect the disc height maintenance, including graft or cage design, the quality of the surrounding bone and the presence of supplementary posterior fixation. The present study is an in vitro biomechanical investigation of the compressive behaviour of three different interbody cage designs in a human cadaveric model. The effect of bone density and posterior instrumentation were assessed. Thirty-six lumbar functional spinal units were instrumented with one of three interbody cages: (1) a porous titanium implant with endplate fit (Stratec), (2) a porous, rectangular carbon-fibre implant (Brantigan) and (3) a porous, cylindrical threaded implant (Ray). Posterior instrumentation (USS) was applied to half of the specimens. All specimens were subjected to axial compression displacement until failure. Correlations between both the failure load and the load at 3 mm displacement with the bone density measurements were observed. Neither the cage design nor the presence of posterior instrumentation had a significant effect on the failure load. The loads at 3 mm were slightly less for the Stratec cage, implying lower axial stiffness, but were not different with posterior instrumentation. The large range of observed failure loads overlaps the potential in vivo compressive loads, implying that failure of the bone-implant interface may occur clinically. Preoperative measurements of bone density may be an effective tool to predict settling around interbody cages.