1996
DOI: 10.1097/00007632-199605010-00007
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Biomechanical Analysis of Thoracolumbar Interbody Constructs: How Important Is the Endplate?

Abstract: Preservation of the vertebral endplate may not offer a significant biomechanical advantage in reconstructing the anterior column. Several alternative constructs are mechanically equivalent.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

6
57
1
10

Year Published

2001
2001
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
4
3

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 126 publications
(74 citation statements)
references
References 6 publications
6
57
1
10
Order By: Relevance
“…Removal of the stiffer cortical endplate exposes a host bed of bleeding trabecular bone (potentially osteogenic cells) which is advantageous from a biological point of view allowing bone fusion with the graft material. A number of in vitro investigations of the effect of endplate removal on the vertebral subsidence force have provided conflicting recommendations including: endplate preservation (Lim et al 2001;Oxland et al 2003); partial endplate removal (Steffen et al 2000;Lowe et al 2004); complete endplate removal (Hollowell et al 1996;Closkey et al 1993). Regardless of the endplate preparation technique, the insertion of a stiff metallic IFD will induce significant stress concentrations in the surrounding bone.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Removal of the stiffer cortical endplate exposes a host bed of bleeding trabecular bone (potentially osteogenic cells) which is advantageous from a biological point of view allowing bone fusion with the graft material. A number of in vitro investigations of the effect of endplate removal on the vertebral subsidence force have provided conflicting recommendations including: endplate preservation (Lim et al 2001;Oxland et al 2003); partial endplate removal (Steffen et al 2000;Lowe et al 2004); complete endplate removal (Hollowell et al 1996;Closkey et al 1993). Regardless of the endplate preparation technique, the insertion of a stiff metallic IFD will induce significant stress concentrations in the surrounding bone.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Experimental studies on subsidence have predominantly focused on endplate preparation and implant geometry with the maximum failure load being measured to evaluate subsidence resistance (Lim et al 2001;Oxland et al 2003;Steffen et al 2000;Lowe et al 2004;Hollowell et al 1996;Closkey et al 1993). Oxland et al (2003) found a significant decrease in failure load and stiffness for endplate removal.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The literature offers no uniform recommendations for the test conditions in compression trials of this type, and test speeds of 5 mm/min [14,30], 0.4 mm/s [18], 35 mm/ min [38] and 2.54 mm/s [16] are described in the literature. Since no group of authors offers any rationale for their respective test speed, we assumed that the various speeds were determined by the test machine employed in each case.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The following average maximum compression forces were measured with various grafts or implants against the vertebral body end-plate by Hollowell et al [16]: 1473 N ("Harms mesh cage", 17×22 mm), 1165 N (iliac crest bone graft), 1038 N (humerus), 1037 N (3×ribs) and 537 N (1×rib). The deformation (distance covered) measured for the "Harms mesh cage" was 5.9 mm, i.e., almost identical to our own results.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%