The in vitro stabilising effect of polyetheretherketone cages versus a titanium cage of similar design for anterior lumbar interbody fusion
- 410 Downloads
This biomechanical study was performed to test the primary segmental in vitro stabilising effect of a standard and large footprint radiolucent poly-ether-ether-ketone (PEEK) box cage versus a titanium box cage for anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Eighteen L2-L3 and sixteen L4-L5 cadaveric motion segments were divided into three groups and received a titanium cage or a radiolucent PEEK cage with standard or large footprint. All specimens were tested in three testing conditions: intact, stand-alone anterior cage and finally with supplemental translaminar screw fixation. Full range of motion and neutral zone measurements were determined and anterior cage pull out force was tested. The titanium design was significantly more effective in reducing the range of motion only in axial rotation. The larger footprint radiolucent cage did not increase stability as compared to the standard footprint. The titanium cage pull out force was significantly (P=0.0002) higher compared to both radiolucent cage constructs. Clinical relevance: Supplemental posterior fixation is strongly recommended to increase initial stability of any anterior interbody fusion cage construct. Although the biomechanical stability necessary to achieve spinal fusion is not defined, the radiolucent designs tested in this study, with a standard footprint as well as with a larger footprint, may be insufficiently stabilised with translaminar screws as compared to the titanium implant. Supplemental pedicle screw fixation may be required to obtain adequate stabilisation in the clinical setting.
KeywordsPoly-ether-ether-ketone Cage Anterior lumbar interbody fusion Biomechanical testing Segmental stability
The study was financially supported by Mathys Medical Ltd, Bettlach, Switzerland. The experiments comply with the current laws of Canada, in which country the experiments were performed.
- 3.Brantigan JW, Steffee AD, Lewis ML, Quinn ML, Persenaire JM (2000) Lumbar interbody fusion using the Brantigan I/F cage for posterior lumbar interbody fusion and the variable pedicle screw placement system. Two-year results from a food and drug administration investigational device exemption clinical trial. Spine 25:1437–1446CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 5.Button G, Gupta M, Barrett C, Barrett C, Cammack P, Benson D (2003) 3 to 6 year follow-up of stand-alone BAK cages. (Poster presentation). Scoliosis Research Society 38th annual meeting Quebec City, CanadaGoogle Scholar
- 6.Christensen FB, Hansen ES, Eiskjaer SP, Høy K, Helmig P, Neumann P, Niedermann B, Bünger CE (2002) Circumferential lumbar spinal fusion with Brantigan cage versus posterolateral fusion with titanium Cotrel-Dubousset instrumentation. A prospective, randomized clinical study of 146 patients. Spine 27:2674–2683CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 11.Gilbert TJ, Heithoff KB, Mullin WJ (2001) Radiographic assessment of cage-assisted interbody fusions in the lumbar spine. Seminars in Spine Surgery 13:311–315Google Scholar
- 20.Magerl F (1998) Stabilization techniques: thoracolumbar spine. In: Aebi M, Thalgott JS, Webb JK (eds) AO ASIF principles in spine surgery. Springer, BerlinHeidelberg, New york, pp 101–102Google Scholar