Skip to main content
Top
Published in: International Orthopaedics 1/2007

01-02-2007 | Original Paper

Biomechanical study of a hat type cervical intervertebral fusion cage

Authors: Yu-Tong Gu, Lian-Shun Jia, Tong-Yi Chen

Published in: International Orthopaedics | Issue 1/2007

Login to get access

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the biomechanical effect of a hat type cervical intervertebral fusion cage (HCIFC). In this in vitro biomechanical study, 48 goat cervical spines (C2-5) were tested in flexion, extension, axial rotation, and lateral bending with a nondestructive stiffness method using a nonconstrained testing apparatus, and three-dimensional displacement was measured. Autologous iliac bone and cervical spine intervertebral fusion cage were implanted according to manufacturers’ information after complete discectomy (C3-4). Eight spines in each of the following groups were tested: intact, autologous iliac bone graft, Harms cage, SynCage C, carbon cage, and HCIFC. The mean apparent stiffness values were calculated from the corresponding load-displacement curves. Additionally, cage volume and volume-related stiffness were determined. The stiffness of the SynCage C was statistically greatest in all directions. After implantation of the HCIFC, flexion stiffness increased compared with that of the intact motion segment. There was no significant difference in stiffness between the HCIFC and carbon cage. The stiffness of the HCIFC was statistically higher than that of the Harms cage in axial rotation and significantly lower in flexion, extension, and lateral bending. Volume-related stiffness of all cages was higher than that of iliac bone graft. The Harms cage was highest in volume-related stiffness in all directions. The HCIFC can provide enough primary stability for cervical intervertebral fusion.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Brooke NS, Rorke AW, King AT et al (1997) Preliminary experience of carbon fibre cage prostheses for treatment of cervical spine disorders. Br J Neurosurg 11:221–227PubMedCrossRef Brooke NS, Rorke AW, King AT et al (1997) Preliminary experience of carbon fibre cage prostheses for treatment of cervical spine disorders. Br J Neurosurg 11:221–227PubMedCrossRef
2.
go back to reference Kumaresan S, Yoganandan N, Pintar FA (1997) Finite element analysis of anterior cervical spine interbody fusion. Biomed Mater Eng 7:221–230PubMed Kumaresan S, Yoganandan N, Pintar FA (1997) Finite element analysis of anterior cervical spine interbody fusion. Biomed Mater Eng 7:221–230PubMed
3.
go back to reference Majd ME, Vadhva M, Holt RT (1999) Anterior cervical reconstruction using titanium cages with anterior plating. Spine 24:1604–1610PubMedCrossRef Majd ME, Vadhva M, Holt RT (1999) Anterior cervical reconstruction using titanium cages with anterior plating. Spine 24:1604–1610PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Matge G (1998) Anterior interbody fusion with the BAK-cage in cervical spondylosis. Acta Neurochir 140:1–8CrossRef Matge G (1998) Anterior interbody fusion with the BAK-cage in cervical spondylosis. Acta Neurochir 140:1–8CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Munoz FLO, de las Heras BG, Lopez VC et al (1998) Comparison of three techniques of anterior fusion in single-level cervical disc herniation. Eur Spine J 7:512–516CrossRef Munoz FLO, de las Heras BG, Lopez VC et al (1998) Comparison of three techniques of anterior fusion in single-level cervical disc herniation. Eur Spine J 7:512–516CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Kandziora F, Schollmeier G, Scholz M et al (2002) Influence of cage design on interbody fusion in a sheep cervical spine model. J Neurosurg 96(3 Suppl):321–332PubMed Kandziora F, Schollmeier G, Scholz M et al (2002) Influence of cage design on interbody fusion in a sheep cervical spine model. J Neurosurg 96(3 Suppl):321–332PubMed
7.
go back to reference Matge G (2002) Cervical cage fusion with 5 different implants: 250 cases. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 144:539–549, discussion 50CrossRef Matge G (2002) Cervical cage fusion with 5 different implants: 250 cases. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 144:539–549, discussion 50CrossRef
8.
9.
go back to reference Kandziora F, Pflugmacher R, Scholz M et al (2001) Comparison between sheep and human cervical spines: an anatomic, radiographic, bone mineral density, and biomechanical study. Spine 26:1028–1037PubMedCrossRef Kandziora F, Pflugmacher R, Scholz M et al (2001) Comparison between sheep and human cervical spines: an anatomic, radiographic, bone mineral density, and biomechanical study. Spine 26:1028–1037PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Goh JC, Wong HK, Thambyah A et al (2000) Influence of PLIF cage size on lumbar spine stability. Spine 25:35–39PubMedCrossRef Goh JC, Wong HK, Thambyah A et al (2000) Influence of PLIF cage size on lumbar spine stability. Spine 25:35–39PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Kim KW, Ha KY, Moon MS et al (1999) Volumetric change of the graft bone after intertransverse fusion. Spine 24:428–433PubMedCrossRef Kim KW, Ha KY, Moon MS et al (1999) Volumetric change of the graft bone after intertransverse fusion. Spine 24:428–433PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference Wilke HJ, Kettler A, Claes LE (1997) Are sheep spines a valid biomechanical model for human spines? Spine 22:2365–2374PubMedCrossRef Wilke HJ, Kettler A, Claes LE (1997) Are sheep spines a valid biomechanical model for human spines? Spine 22:2365–2374PubMedCrossRef
13.
go back to reference Cain CC, Fraser RD (1995) Bony and vascular anatomy of the normal cervical spine in the sheep. Spine 20:759–765PubMedCrossRef Cain CC, Fraser RD (1995) Bony and vascular anatomy of the normal cervical spine in the sheep. Spine 20:759–765PubMedCrossRef
14.
go back to reference Pait GT, Killefer JA, Arnautovic KI (1996) Surgical anatomy of the anterior cervical spine: the disc space, vertebral artery, and associated bony structures. Neurosurgery 39:769–776PubMedCrossRef Pait GT, Killefer JA, Arnautovic KI (1996) Surgical anatomy of the anterior cervical spine: the disc space, vertebral artery, and associated bony structures. Neurosurgery 39:769–776PubMedCrossRef
15.
go back to reference Jost B, Cripton PA, Lund T et al (1998) Compressive strength of interbody cages in the lumbar spine: the effect of cage shape, posterior instrumentation, and bone density. Eur Spine J 7:132–141PubMedCrossRef Jost B, Cripton PA, Lund T et al (1998) Compressive strength of interbody cages in the lumbar spine: the effect of cage shape, posterior instrumentation, and bone density. Eur Spine J 7:132–141PubMedCrossRef
16.
go back to reference Wilke HJ, Kettler A, Goetz C et al (2000) Subsidence resulting from simulated postoperative neck movements: an in vitro investigation with a new cervical fusion cage. Spine 25(21):2762–2770PubMedCrossRef Wilke HJ, Kettler A, Goetz C et al (2000) Subsidence resulting from simulated postoperative neck movements: an in vitro investigation with a new cervical fusion cage. Spine 25(21):2762–2770PubMedCrossRef
17.
go back to reference Kanayama M, Cunningham BW, Haggerty CJ et al (2000) In vitro biomechanical investigation of the stability and stress-shielding effect of lumbar interbody fusion devices. J Neurosurg (2 Suppl) 93:259–265PubMed Kanayama M, Cunningham BW, Haggerty CJ et al (2000) In vitro biomechanical investigation of the stability and stress-shielding effect of lumbar interbody fusion devices. J Neurosurg (2 Suppl) 93:259–265PubMed
Metadata
Title
Biomechanical study of a hat type cervical intervertebral fusion cage
Authors
Yu-Tong Gu
Lian-Shun Jia
Tong-Yi Chen
Publication date
01-02-2007
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
International Orthopaedics / Issue 1/2007
Print ISSN: 0341-2695
Electronic ISSN: 1432-5195
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-006-0141-8

Other articles of this Issue 1/2007

International Orthopaedics 1/2007 Go to the issue