Clinical biomechanics (Bristol, Avon) · 2022
Biomechanical comparison of subsidence performance among three modern porous lateral cage designs.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Yee-Yanagishita Christian, Fogel Guy, Douglas Brooke, Essayan Gregory, Poojary Brijesh, Martin Nicholas, Williams Gregory M, Peng Yun, Jekir Michael
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Cage subsidence remains a major complication after spinal surgery. The goal of this study was to compare the subsidence performance of three modern porous cage designs.
METHODS: Three porous cages were evaluated: a porous titanium cage, a porous polyetheretherketone cage and a truss titanium cage. Mechanical testing was performed for each cage per the American Society for Testing and Materials F2077 and F2267 standards to evaluate cage stiffness and block stiffness, and per a novel clinically relevant dynamic subsidence testing method simulating cyclic spine loading during 3-months postoperatively to evaluate the subsidence displacement.
FINDINGS: The porous polyetheretherketone cage demonstrated the lowest cage stiffness (21.0 ± 1.1 kN/mm), less than half of both titanium cages (truss titanium cage, 49.1 kN/mm; porous titanium cage, 43.6 kN/mm). The block stiffness was greatest for the porous titanium cage (2867.7 ± 105.3 N/mm), followed by the porous polyetheretherketone (2563.4 ± 72.9 N/mm) and truss titanium cages (2213.7 ± 21.8 N/mm). The dynamic subsidence displacement was greatest for the truss titanium cage, which was 1.5 and 2.5 times the subsidence displacement as the porous polyetheretherketone and porous titanium cages respectively.
INTERPRETATIONS: Specific porous cage design plays a crucial role in the cage subsidence performance, to a greater degree than the selection of cage materials. A porous titanium cage with body lattice and microporous endplates significantly outperformed a truss titanium cage with a similar cage stiffness in subsidence performance, and a porous polyetheretherketone cage with half of its stiffness.
METHODS: Three porous cages were evaluated: a porous titanium cage, a porous polyetheretherketone cage and a truss titanium cage. Mechanical testing was performed for each cage per the American Society for Testing and Materials F2077 and F2267 standards to evaluate cage stiffness and block stiffness, and per a novel clinically relevant dynamic subsidence testing method simulating cyclic spine loading during 3-months postoperatively to evaluate the subsidence displacement.
FINDINGS: The porous polyetheretherketone cage demonstrated the lowest cage stiffness (21.0 ± 1.1 kN/mm), less than half of both titanium cages (truss titanium cage, 49.1 kN/mm; porous titanium cage, 43.6 kN/mm). The block stiffness was greatest for the porous titanium cage (2867.7 ± 105.3 N/mm), followed by the porous polyetheretherketone (2563.4 ± 72.9 N/mm) and truss titanium cages (2213.7 ± 21.8 N/mm). The dynamic subsidence displacement was greatest for the truss titanium cage, which was 1.5 and 2.5 times the subsidence displacement as the porous polyetheretherketone and porous titanium cages respectively.
INTERPRETATIONS: Specific porous cage design plays a crucial role in the cage subsidence performance, to a greater degree than the selection of cage materials. A porous titanium cage with body lattice and microporous endplates significantly outperformed a truss titanium cage with a similar cage stiffness in subsidence performance, and a porous polyetheretherketone cage with half of its stiffness.