Advertisement

Journal of Orthopaedic Science

, Volume 2, Issue 3, pp 157–165 | Cite as

Evaluation of cylindrical interbody fusion devices in canine lumbar spine: Comparison of fixation stiffness in devices with and without hydroxyapatite coating

  • Hiromi Matsuzaki
  • Yasuaki Tokuhashi
  • Ken Wakabayashi
  • Kazuhiro Ishihara
  • Hiroto Ishikawa
  • Akihiro Okawa
  • Yoshio Shirasaki
  • Tetsuya Tateishi
Original Articles
  • 81 Downloads

Abstract

To establish intervertebral body fusion without the use of autogenous bone grafts, we tested special titanium cylindrical devices. The firmness of fixation of devices coated with hydroxyapatite (HA) (HA-D) or not coated (Ti-D) was compared in nine mongrel dogs. General anesthesia, was compared in nine mongrel dogs. General anesthesia, was conducted and the devices were implanted in the same animal through the peritoneum in two adjacent intervertebral spaces (between L3 and L6). The follow-up period was 2–72 weeks, and two animals at a time were evaluated at different periods during follow-up (groups I–IV). In each group, the entire lumbar segment of L3-7 was removed en bloc and examined histologically and radiologically with soft X-ray. In Group II (the earliest group), radiographs of the HA-D showed bone growth converging into the perforations of the device, indicating a firm bond between HA-D and vertebral bodies. No such bone growth was observed in the Ti-D. Histologically, the HA-D showed an intimate bond between the new osseous tissue and HA as early as in group I. In group III, marked ingrowth of bone was noted with both types of devices, although it was more marked with HA-D than Ti-D. Fibrous gaps between the metal and bone were present in Ti-D throughout the study period of 72 weeks. The HA-D allowed a firm bond between HA and ingrowth of ample amounts of bone inside the perforations, as well as a strong bond between HA and the vertebral bodies. When the HA-D was used for interbody fixation, early stable interbody fixation was achieved, indication that the hydroxyapatite-coated cylindrical device may be suitable for interbody fixation without the need for a bone autograft.

Key words

hydroxyapatite spinal fixation spinal instrument fusion cage 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Cockin J. Autologous bone grafting—complications at the donor site. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1971;53:153.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cook SD, Reynolds MC, Whitecloud TS, et al. Evaluation of hydroxyapatite graft materials in canine cervical spine fusions. Spine 1986;11:305–309.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cook SD, Thomas KA, Kay JF, et al. Hydroxyapatite-coated porous titanium for use as an orthopedic biologic attachment system. Clin Orthop 1988;230:303–12.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cook SD, Thomas KA, Dalton JE, et al. Hydroxyapatite coating of porous implants improves bone ingrowth and interface attachment strength. J Biomed Mater Res 1992;26:989–1001.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hayashi K, Inadome T, Mashima T, et al. Comparison of bone-implant interface shear strength of solid hydroyapatite and hydroxyapatite-coated titanium implants. J Biomed Mater Res 1993;27:557–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kostuik JP, Munting E, Valdevit A. Biomechanical analysis of screw load sharing in pedicle fixation of the lumbar spine. J Spinal Disord 1994;7:394–401.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nakauchi M, Yamamoto H, Kamioka Y, et al. An experimental study on titanium fiber metal implant for spine fusion (in Japanese). Cent Jpn J Orthop Traumat 1991;34:1773–83.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Robinson RA, Walker AE, Feric DC, et al. The results of anterior interbody fusion of the cervical spine. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1962;44:1569–87.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Søballe K, Hansen ES, Brockstedt-Rasmussen H, et al. Hydroxyapatite coating converts fibrous tissue to bone around loaded implants. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1993;75:270–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Spivak JM, Neuwirth MG, Labiak JJ et al. Hydroxyapatite enhancement of posterior spinal instrumentation fixation. Spine 1994;19:955–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Stephenson PK, Freeman MAR, Revell PA, et al. The effect of hydroxyapatite coating on ingrowth of bone into cavities in an implant. J ARthroplasty 1991;6:51–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Summers BN, Eisenstein SM. Donor site pain from the ilium. A complication of lumbar spine fusion. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1989;71:677–80.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tisdel CL, Goldberg VM, Parr JA, et al. The influence of a hydroxyapatite and tricalcium-phosphate coating on bone growth into titanium fiber-metal implants. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1994;76:159–71.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yamamuro T, Shikata J, Okumura H, et al. Replacement of the lumbar vertebrae of sheep with ceramic prostheses. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1990;72:889–93.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Japanese Orthopaedic Association 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hiromi Matsuzaki
    • 1
  • Yasuaki Tokuhashi
    • 1
  • Ken Wakabayashi
    • 1
  • Kazuhiro Ishihara
    • 1
  • Hiroto Ishikawa
    • 1
  • Akihiro Okawa
    • 1
  • Yoshio Shirasaki
    • 2
  • Tetsuya Tateishi
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryNihon University School of MedicineTokyoJapan
  2. 2.Mechanical Engineering Laboratory, Agency of Industrial Science and TechnologyMinistry of International Trade and IndustryTsukubaJapan

Personalised recommendations