Primary stability of the Activ L® intervertebral disc prosthesis in cadaver bone and comparison of the keel and spike anchoring concept.
Aesculap ActivL
Anchoring concept
Keel
Micromotions
Primary stability of intervertebral disc prosthesis
Spikes
Journal
BMC musculoskeletal disorders
ISSN: 1471-2474
Titre abrégé: BMC Musculoskelet Disord
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968565
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 Nov 2021
08 Nov 2021
Historique:
received:
01
03
2020
accepted:
28
07
2021
entrez:
9
11
2021
pubmed:
10
11
2021
medline:
11
11
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
High primary stability is the key prerequisite for safe osseointegration of cementless intervertebral disc prostheses. The aim of our study was to determine the primary stability of intervertebral disc prostheses with two different anchoring concepts - keel and spike anchoring. Ten ActivL intervertebral disc prostheses (5 x keel anchoring, 5 x spike anchoring) implanted in human cadaver lumbar spine specimens were tested in a spine movement simulator. Axial load flexion, extension, left and right bending and axial rotation motions were applied on the lumbar spine specimens through a defined three-dimensional movement program following ISO 2631 and ISO/CD 18192-1.3 standards. Tri-dimensional micromotions of the implants were measured for both anchor types and compared using Student's T-test for significance after calculating 95 % confidence intervals. In the transverse axis, the keel anchoring concept showed statistically significant (p < 0.05) lower mean values of micromotions compared to the spike anchoring concept. The highest micromotion values for both types were observed in the longitudinal axis. In no case the threshold of 200 micrometers was exceeded. Both fixation systems fulfill the required criteria of primary stability. Independent of the selected anchorage type an immediate postoperative active mobilization doesn't compromise the stability of the prostheses.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
High primary stability is the key prerequisite for safe osseointegration of cementless intervertebral disc prostheses. The aim of our study was to determine the primary stability of intervertebral disc prostheses with two different anchoring concepts - keel and spike anchoring.
METHODS
METHODS
Ten ActivL intervertebral disc prostheses (5 x keel anchoring, 5 x spike anchoring) implanted in human cadaver lumbar spine specimens were tested in a spine movement simulator. Axial load flexion, extension, left and right bending and axial rotation motions were applied on the lumbar spine specimens through a defined three-dimensional movement program following ISO 2631 and ISO/CD 18192-1.3 standards. Tri-dimensional micromotions of the implants were measured for both anchor types and compared using Student's T-test for significance after calculating 95 % confidence intervals.
RESULTS
RESULTS
In the transverse axis, the keel anchoring concept showed statistically significant (p < 0.05) lower mean values of micromotions compared to the spike anchoring concept. The highest micromotion values for both types were observed in the longitudinal axis. In no case the threshold of 200 micrometers was exceeded.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Both fixation systems fulfill the required criteria of primary stability. Independent of the selected anchorage type an immediate postoperative active mobilization doesn't compromise the stability of the prostheses.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34749688
doi: 10.1186/s12891-021-04544-7
pii: 10.1186/s12891-021-04544-7
pmc: PMC8577002
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
934Subventions
Organisme : B. Braun Medical
ID : no
Organisme : Deutsche Forschungsgesellschaft (DFG)
ID : Deutsche Forschungsgesellschaft (DFG)
Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
Jasty M, Bragdon C, Burke D, O’Connor D, Lowenstein J, Harris WH. In vivo skeletal responses to porous-surfaced implants subjected to small induced motions. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1997;79(5):707–14.
doi: 10.2106/00004623-199705000-00010
Pitto RP, Bohner J, Hofmeister V. Factors affecting the stability of acetabular components. An in vitro study. Biomed Tech (Berl). 1997;42:363–8.
doi: 10.1515/bmte.1997.42.12.363
Panjabi MM. Dreidimensionale Testung der Stabilität von Wirbelsäulenimplantaten. Orthopäde. 1991;20(2):106–11.
Wilke HJ, Wenger K, Claes L. Testing criteria for spinal implants recommendations for the standardization of in vitro stability tasting of spinal implants. Eur Spine J. 1998;7(2):148–54.
doi: 10.1007/s005860050045
Schmoelz W, Huber J-F, Nydegger T, Claes L, Wilke H-J. Dynamic stabilization of the lumbar spine and its effects on adjacent segments - an invitro experiment. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2003;16(4):418–23.
doi: 10.1097/00024720-200308000-00015
Panjabi MM, Krag MH, Goel VK. A technique for measurement and description of three- dimensional six degree-of-freedom motion of a body joint with application to the human spine. J Biomech. 1981;14(7):447–60.
doi: 10.1016/0021-9290(81)90095-6
Cunningham BW, Gordon M, Dmitriev A, Hu N, McAfee PC. Biomechanical Evaluation of Total Disc Replacement Arthroplasty: An In Vitro Human Cadaveric Model. Spine. 2003;28(20):110–7.
doi: 10.1097/01.BRS.0000092209.27573.90
DIN/ISO 2631SO. 2631-1:1997-05. Mechanical vibration and shock - Evaluation of human exposure to whole-body vibration - Part 1: General requirements. 1997-05.
ISO/CD 18192-1.3. Implants for surgery-Wear of total intervertebral spinal disc prothesis. Part 3: Impingement wear testing and corresponding environmental conditions for test of lumbar prothesis under adverse conditions. 2017-4.
Keller TS, Spengler DM, Hansson TH. Mechanical Behavior of the Human Lumbar Spine. I. Creep Analysis During Static Compressive Loading. J Orthop Res. 1987;9:467–78.
doi: 10.1002/jor.1100050402
McAfee PC. The indications for lumbar and cervical disc replacement. Spine J. 2004;4:177–81.
doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2004.07.003
Bah MT, Shi J, Heller MO, Suchier Y, Lefebvre F, Young P, King L, Dunlop DG, Boettcher M, Draper E, Browne M. Intersubject variability effects on the primary stability of a short cementless femoral stem. J Biomech. 2015;48(6):1032–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2015.01.037 Epub 7 Feb 2015.
doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2015.01.037
O’Rourke D, Al-Dirini RM, Taylor M. Primary stability of a cementless acetabular cup in a cohort of patientspecific finite element models. J Orthop Res. 2017; https://doi.org/10.1002/jor.23709 . [Epub ahead of print].
The Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register. Annual Report 2014.
Rosenthall L. Hip and knee prostheses: evaluation of the natural history of periprosthetic bone changes. Semin Nucl Med. 1997;27(4):346–54.
doi: 10.1016/S0001-2998(97)80007-4
Shein D, Shue J, Girardi F. Evaluation of Aesculap Implant Systems activL Artificial Disc for the treatment of degenerative disc disease. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2016;13(12):1069–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/17434440.2016.1256771 Epub 22 Nov 2016.
doi: 10.1080/17434440.2016.1256771
Garcia R Jr, Yue JJ, Blumenthal S, Coric D, Patel VV, Leary SP, Dinh DH, Buttermann GR, Deutsch H, Girardi F, Billys J, Miller LE. Lumbar Total Disc Replacement for Discogenic Low Back Pain: Two-year Outcomes of the activL Multicenter Randomized Controlled IDE Clinical Trial. Spine. 2015;40(24):1873–81. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000001245 .
doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001245
Yue JJ, Garcia R Jr, Miller LE. The activL(®) Artificial Disc: a next-generation motion-preserving implant for chronic lumbar discogenic pain. Med Devices (Auckl). 2016;10(9):75–84. https://doi.org/10.2147/MDER.S102949 .
doi: 10.2147/MDER.S102949