Finite element analysis and cadaveric cinematic analysis of fixation options for anteriorly implanted trabecular metal interbody cages

Pedro Berjano, Juan Francisco Blanco, Diego Rendon, Jorge Hugo Villafañe, David Pescador, Carlos Manuel Atienza

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: To assess, with finite element analysis and an in vitro biomechanical study in cadaver, whether the implementation of an anterior interbody cage made of hedrocel with nitinol shape memory staples in compression increases the stiffness of the stand-alone interbody cage and to compare these constructs’ stiffness to other constructs common in clinical practice. Methods: A biomechanical study with a finite element analysis and cadaveric testing assessed the stiffness of different fixation modes for the L4–L5 functional spinal unit: intact spine, destabilized spine with discectomy, posterior pedicle-screw fixation, anterior stand-alone interbody cage, anterior interbody cage with bilateral pedicle screws and anterior interbody cage with two shape memory staples in compression. These modalities of vertebral fixation were compared in four loading modes (flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation). Results: The L4–L5 spinal unit with an anterior interbody cage and two staples was stiffer than the stand-alone cage. The construct stiffness was similar to that of a model of posterior pedicular stabilization. The stiffness was lower than that of the anterior cage plus bilateral pedicle-screw fixation. Conclusion: The use of an anterior interbody implant with shape memory staples in compression may be an alternative to isolated posterior fixation and to anterior isolated implants, with increased stiffness.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)918-923
Number of pages6
JournalEuropean Spine Journal
Volume24
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Nov 1 2015

Fingerprint

Finite Element Analysis
Metals
Spine
Phthiraptera
Diskectomy
Cadaver
Pedicle Screws

Keywords

  • Anatomic study
  • Anterior lumbar fusion
  • Biomechanics
  • Lumbar vertebrae

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery
  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine

Cite this

Finite element analysis and cadaveric cinematic analysis of fixation options for anteriorly implanted trabecular metal interbody cages. / Berjano, Pedro; Blanco, Juan Francisco; Rendon, Diego; Villafañe, Jorge Hugo; Pescador, David; Atienza, Carlos Manuel.

In: European Spine Journal, Vol. 24, 01.11.2015, p. 918-923.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{69f1033016a4485bbe9aadb12035e937,
title = "Finite element analysis and cadaveric cinematic analysis of fixation options for anteriorly implanted trabecular metal interbody cages",
abstract = "Purpose: To assess, with finite element analysis and an in vitro biomechanical study in cadaver, whether the implementation of an anterior interbody cage made of hedrocel with nitinol shape memory staples in compression increases the stiffness of the stand-alone interbody cage and to compare these constructs’ stiffness to other constructs common in clinical practice. Methods: A biomechanical study with a finite element analysis and cadaveric testing assessed the stiffness of different fixation modes for the L4–L5 functional spinal unit: intact spine, destabilized spine with discectomy, posterior pedicle-screw fixation, anterior stand-alone interbody cage, anterior interbody cage with bilateral pedicle screws and anterior interbody cage with two shape memory staples in compression. These modalities of vertebral fixation were compared in four loading modes (flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation). Results: The L4–L5 spinal unit with an anterior interbody cage and two staples was stiffer than the stand-alone cage. The construct stiffness was similar to that of a model of posterior pedicular stabilization. The stiffness was lower than that of the anterior cage plus bilateral pedicle-screw fixation. Conclusion: The use of an anterior interbody implant with shape memory staples in compression may be an alternative to isolated posterior fixation and to anterior isolated implants, with increased stiffness.",
keywords = "Anatomic study, Anterior lumbar fusion, Biomechanics, Lumbar vertebrae",
author = "Pedro Berjano and Blanco, {Juan Francisco} and Diego Rendon and Villafa{\~n}e, {Jorge Hugo} and David Pescador and Atienza, {Carlos Manuel}",
year = "2015",
month = "11",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s00586-015-4277-3",
language = "English",
volume = "24",
pages = "918--923",
journal = "European Spine Journal",
issn = "0940-6719",
publisher = "Springer Verlag",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Finite element analysis and cadaveric cinematic analysis of fixation options for anteriorly implanted trabecular metal interbody cages

AU - Berjano, Pedro

AU - Blanco, Juan Francisco

AU - Rendon, Diego

AU - Villafañe, Jorge Hugo

AU - Pescador, David

AU - Atienza, Carlos Manuel

PY - 2015/11/1

Y1 - 2015/11/1

N2 - Purpose: To assess, with finite element analysis and an in vitro biomechanical study in cadaver, whether the implementation of an anterior interbody cage made of hedrocel with nitinol shape memory staples in compression increases the stiffness of the stand-alone interbody cage and to compare these constructs’ stiffness to other constructs common in clinical practice. Methods: A biomechanical study with a finite element analysis and cadaveric testing assessed the stiffness of different fixation modes for the L4–L5 functional spinal unit: intact spine, destabilized spine with discectomy, posterior pedicle-screw fixation, anterior stand-alone interbody cage, anterior interbody cage with bilateral pedicle screws and anterior interbody cage with two shape memory staples in compression. These modalities of vertebral fixation were compared in four loading modes (flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation). Results: The L4–L5 spinal unit with an anterior interbody cage and two staples was stiffer than the stand-alone cage. The construct stiffness was similar to that of a model of posterior pedicular stabilization. The stiffness was lower than that of the anterior cage plus bilateral pedicle-screw fixation. Conclusion: The use of an anterior interbody implant with shape memory staples in compression may be an alternative to isolated posterior fixation and to anterior isolated implants, with increased stiffness.

AB - Purpose: To assess, with finite element analysis and an in vitro biomechanical study in cadaver, whether the implementation of an anterior interbody cage made of hedrocel with nitinol shape memory staples in compression increases the stiffness of the stand-alone interbody cage and to compare these constructs’ stiffness to other constructs common in clinical practice. Methods: A biomechanical study with a finite element analysis and cadaveric testing assessed the stiffness of different fixation modes for the L4–L5 functional spinal unit: intact spine, destabilized spine with discectomy, posterior pedicle-screw fixation, anterior stand-alone interbody cage, anterior interbody cage with bilateral pedicle screws and anterior interbody cage with two shape memory staples in compression. These modalities of vertebral fixation were compared in four loading modes (flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation). Results: The L4–L5 spinal unit with an anterior interbody cage and two staples was stiffer than the stand-alone cage. The construct stiffness was similar to that of a model of posterior pedicular stabilization. The stiffness was lower than that of the anterior cage plus bilateral pedicle-screw fixation. Conclusion: The use of an anterior interbody implant with shape memory staples in compression may be an alternative to isolated posterior fixation and to anterior isolated implants, with increased stiffness.

KW - Anatomic study

KW - Anterior lumbar fusion

KW - Biomechanics

KW - Lumbar vertebrae

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84947616722&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84947616722&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s00586-015-4277-3

DO - 10.1007/s00586-015-4277-3

M3 - Article

C2 - 26452680

AN - SCOPUS:84947616722

VL - 24

SP - 918

EP - 923

JO - European Spine Journal

JF - European Spine Journal

SN - 0940-6719

ER -