• S M Belkoff, J M Mathis, L E Jasper, and H Deramond.
• Orthopaedic Biomechanics Laboratory, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. ebulson@jhmi.edu
• Spine. 2001 Jul 15; 26 (14): 1542-6.

Study DesignComparative ex vivo biomechanical study.ObjectiveTo determine the strength and stiffness of osteoporotic vertebral bodies subjected to compression fractures and stabilized via bipedicular injections of the following: 1) Simplex P (Stryker-Howmedica-Osteonics, Rutherford, NJ), 2) Simplex P formulated consistent with the practice of vertebroplasty (F2), or 3) BoneSource (Stryker-Howmedica-Osteonics).Summary Of Background DataLittle is known about the mechanical stabilization afforded by new materials proposed for use with vertebroplasty.MethodsVertebral bodies (T8-T10 and L2-L4) from each of 10 fresh spines were harvested from female cadavers (81 +/- 12 years), screened for bone density (t score, -3.8 +/- 1.1; bone mineral density, 0.75 +/- 15 g/cm2), disarticulated, and compressed to determine initial strength and stiffness. The fractured vertebral bodies were stabilized via bipedicular injections of 4 mL (thoracic) or 6 mL (lumbar) and then recrushed.ResultsVertebral bodies repaired with Simplex P resulted in significantly greater strength (P < 0.05) relative to their prefracture states, those repaired with BoneSource resulted in the restoration of initial strength for both the thoracic and lumbar level, and those repaired with F2 resulted in significantly greater strength (P < 0.05) in the thoracic region and restoration of strength in the lumbar region. All cement treatments resulted in significantly less stiffness compared with initial values.ConclusionsAll three materials tested restored or increased vertebral body strength, but none restored stiffness. Both new materials show promise for use in percutaneous vertebroplasty, but they need clinical evaluation.

34 keywords...

hide…