Biocompatibility of Metallic Spinal Implants

  • Gregory J. Bennett
Conference paper
Part of the Contemporary Perspectives in Neurosurgery book series (COPENEU)


Lumbar stabilization surgery has increasingly utilized metallic implants in various forms. The intended effect of most implants is to provide sufficient stiffness to the spine to facilitate a bone fusion across motion segments. Spinal implants may have many other effects including local and systemic chemical and immunological effects, and biomechanically induced changes in surrounding bone, such as pressure necrosis, remodeling, and osteopenia (8,13). Because of the biomechanical variations in spinal instability syndromes and possibly also the biological capability for bone formation and incorporation, the implant design and surgical construct remain diverse and their relative merits are poorly understood. However, in general, the implants are considered temporary “splints” for support and load sharing with the spine in anticipation of an eventual bone fusion. Once the fusion has occurred, their contribution to spine stability and patient comfort and activities becomes less apparent. Nevertheless, most implants are left in place after the fusion matures. This raises the possibility of deriving additional long-term benefits from the presence of the implant or, alternatively, the possibility of accumulative biologic toxicity or undesirable biomechanical consequences.


Pedicle Screw Migration Inhibit Factor Load Sharing Titanium Implant Metallic Implant 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Albrektsson T, Branemark PI, Hansson HA, et al. The interface zone of inorganic implants in vivo: Titanium implants in bone. Ann Biomed Eng. 1983;11:1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Albrektsson T, Branemark PI, Hansson HA, Lindstrom J. Osseointegrated titanium implants. Requirements for ensuring a long-lasting, direct bone-to-implant anchorage in man. Acta Orthop Scand. 1981;52:155–170.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baier RE, Meyer AE. Aspects of bioadhesion. In: Lee L-H, ed. Fundamentals of Adhesion. New York: Plenum; 1991:407–425.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baier RE, Meyer AE, Akers CK, Natiella JR, Meenaghan M, Carter JM. Degradative effects of conventional steam sterilization on biomaterial surfaces.Biomaterials. 1982;3:241–245.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baier RE, Meyer AE, Natiella JR, Natiella RR, Carter JM. Surface properties determine bioadhesive outcomes: Methods and results. J Biomed Mater Res. 1984;18:337–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Branemark PI, Hansson BO, Breine U, Lindstrom J, Hallen O. Osseointegrated implants in the treatment of edentulous jaw. Experience from a 10 year period. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg. 1977;16(suppl): 1–32.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Branemark PI, Zarb G, Albrektsson T. Tissue Integrated Prosthesis: Osseointegration in Clinical Dentistry. Chicago; Quintessence; 1985.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Goel VK, Lim TH, Gwon J, et al. Effects of rigidity of an internal fixation device: A comprehensive biomechanical investigation. Spine. 1991; 16(suppl): S155-S161.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hansson HA, Albrektsson T, Branemark PE. Structural aspects of the interface between tissue and titanium implants. J Prosthet Dent. 1983;50:108–113.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hartman LC, Meehaghan A, Schaaf NG, Hawker PB. Effects of pretreatment sterilization and cleaning methods on materials properties and osseoinductivity of a threaded implant. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1989;4:11–19.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hayashi K, Matsuguchi N, Uenoyama K, Kanemaru T, Sugioka Y. Evaluation of metal implants coated with several types of ceramics as biomaterials. J Biomed Mater Res. 1989;23:1247–1259.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kasemo B. Biocompatibility of titanium implants: Surface science aspects. J Prosthet Dent. 1983;49:832–837.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    McAfee PC, Farey ID, Fracs BS, et al. Device-related osteoporosis with spinal instrumentation. Spine. 1989;14:919–926.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Merritt K, Brown SA. Hypersensitivity to metallic biomaterials. In: Williams DF, ed. Systemic Aspects of Biocompatibility. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 1981:33–48.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Parel SM, Holt GR, Branemark PI, Tjellstrom A. Osseointegration and facial prosthetics. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1989;1:27–29.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Singh S, Schaaf NG. Dynamic sterilization of titanium implants with ultraviolet light. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1989;4:139–146.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sunderman FW. Recent advances in metal carcinogenesis. Ann Clin Lab Sci. 1984;14:93–122.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tjellstrom A, Rosenhall U, Lindstrom J, Hallen O, Albrektsson T, Branemark PI. Five-year experience with skin-penetrating bone-anchored implants in the temporal bone. Acta Otolaryngol. 1983;95:568–575.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York, Inc. 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gregory J. Bennett

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations