Does nanoscale porous titanium coating increase lumbar spinal stiffness of an interbody fusion cage? An in vivo biomechanical analysis in an ovine model.


Journal

Clinical biomechanics (Bristol, Avon)
ISSN: 1879-1271
Titre abrégé: Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)
Pays: England
ID NLM: 8611877

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
07 2019
Historique:
received: 05 11 2018
revised: 29 04 2019
accepted: 30 04 2019
pubmed: 9 6 2019
medline: 10 6 2020
entrez: 9 6 2019
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Quantitative objective measures to determine fusion achievement further enable the comparison of new technologies, such as interbody cage surface enhancement. Our aims were to compare in vivo biomechanical responses of ovine L4/5 lumbar motion segments with two cages: 1) Polyetheretherketone or 2) Polyetheretherketone with a nanosurfaced titanium porous scaffold from Nanovis, Inc. Fourteen Merino sheep randomly received either 1) standard Polyetheretherketone cage or 2) Nanocoated Polyetheretherketone cage at L4/L5 with autologous bone graft. At baseline and one-year follow-up, dynamic spinal stiffness was quantified in vivo using a validated mechanical assessment at 2 Hz, 6 Hz, and 12 Hz. The dorsoventral secant stiffness (k Both implants increased spinal stiffness at 2 Hz (21 and 39%, respectively, p < .005), and at 6 Hz (12 and 27%, p < .0001). Significantly greater spinal stiffness was observed with Nanocoated Polyetheretherketone at one-year for both frequencies (p < .05). No significant differences were observed at 12 Hz within or between groups. L4-L5 dorsoventral accelerations were significantly decreased one year following cage placement only with Nanocoated Polyetheretherketone (p < .05) and greater reductions in acceleration were observed with Nanocoated Polyetheretherketone compared to standard Polyetheretherketone (p < .05). Both cages increased spinal stiffness, yet, nanosurfaced cages resulted in greater spinal stiffness changes and decreases in L4-L5 accelerations. These findings may assist in clinical decision making and post-operative recovery strategies.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
Quantitative objective measures to determine fusion achievement further enable the comparison of new technologies, such as interbody cage surface enhancement. Our aims were to compare in vivo biomechanical responses of ovine L4/5 lumbar motion segments with two cages: 1) Polyetheretherketone or 2) Polyetheretherketone with a nanosurfaced titanium porous scaffold from Nanovis, Inc.
METHODS
Fourteen Merino sheep randomly received either 1) standard Polyetheretherketone cage or 2) Nanocoated Polyetheretherketone cage at L4/L5 with autologous bone graft. At baseline and one-year follow-up, dynamic spinal stiffness was quantified in vivo using a validated mechanical assessment at 2 Hz, 6 Hz, and 12 Hz. The dorsoventral secant stiffness (k
FINDINGS
Both implants increased spinal stiffness at 2 Hz (21 and 39%, respectively, p < .005), and at 6 Hz (12 and 27%, p < .0001). Significantly greater spinal stiffness was observed with Nanocoated Polyetheretherketone at one-year for both frequencies (p < .05). No significant differences were observed at 12 Hz within or between groups. L4-L5 dorsoventral accelerations were significantly decreased one year following cage placement only with Nanocoated Polyetheretherketone (p < .05) and greater reductions in acceleration were observed with Nanocoated Polyetheretherketone compared to standard Polyetheretherketone (p < .05).
INTERPRETATION
Both cages increased spinal stiffness, yet, nanosurfaced cages resulted in greater spinal stiffness changes and decreases in L4-L5 accelerations. These findings may assist in clinical decision making and post-operative recovery strategies.

Identifiants

pubmed: 31176064
pii: S0268-0033(18)30925-2
doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2019.04.024
pii:
doi:

Substances chimiques

Titanium D1JT611TNE

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

187-196

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Auteurs

Robert Gunzburg (R)

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Edith Cavell Clinic, Brussels, Belgium. Electronic address: robert@gunzburg.be.

Christopher J Colloca (CJ)

International Spine Research Foundation, Chandler, AZ, USA.

Claire F Jones (CF)

Adelaide Centre for Spinal Research, SA Pathology, Adelaide, Australia; Centre for Orthopaedic and Trauma Research, University of Adelaide, Australia.

David J Hall (DJ)

Adelaide Centre for Spinal Research, SA Pathology, Adelaide, Australia; Department of Spinal Surgery, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, Australia.

Jeb McAviney (J)

Sydney Scoliosis Clinic, Sydney, Australia.

Stuart Callary (S)

School of Mechanical Engineering, University of Adelaide, Australia.

Mostafa A Hegazy (MA)

Science Department, Southwest Minnesota State University, Marshall, MN, USA.

Marek Szpalski (M)

Department of Orthopedics, Hôpitaux Iris Sud/IRIS South Teaching Hospitals, Brussels, Belgium.

Brian J C Freeman (BJC)

Adelaide Centre for Spinal Research, SA Pathology, Adelaide, Australia; Centre for Orthopaedic and Trauma Research, University of Adelaide, Australia; Department of Spinal Surgery, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, Australia.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH