• Spine J · Jan 2014

    Comparative Study

    Biomechanics of an integrated interbody device versus ACDF anterior locking plate in a single-level cervical spine fusion construct.

    • Matthew I Stein, Aniruddh N Nayak, Roger B Gaskins, Andres F Cabezas, Brandon G Santoni, and Antonio E Castellvi.
    • Department of Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine, University of South Florida, 13220 USF Laurel Dr, Tampa, FL 33612, USA.
    • Spine J. 2014 Jan 1;14(1):128-36.

    Background ContextNo profile, integrated interbody cages are designed to act as implants for cervical spine fusion, which obviates the need for additional internal fixation, combining the functionality of an interbody device and the stabilizing benefits of an anterior cervical plate. Biomechanical data are needed to determine if integrated interbody constructs afford similar stability to anterior plating in single-level cervical spine fusion constructs.PurposeThe purpose of this study was to biomechanically quantify the acute stabilizing effect conferred by a single low-profile device design with three integrated screws ("anchored cage"), and compare the range of motion reductions to those conferred by a standard four-hole rigid anterior plate following instrumentation at the C5-C6 level. We hypothesized that the anchored cage would confer comparable postoperative segmental rigidity to the cage and anterior plate construct.Study DesignBiomechanical laboratory study of human cadaveric spines.MethodsSeven human cadaveric cervical spines (C3-C7) were biomechanically evaluated using a nondestructive, nonconstraining, pure-moment loading protocol with loads applied in flexion, extension, lateral bending (right+left), and axial rotation (left+right) for the intact and instrumented conditions. Range of motion (ROM) at the instrumented level was the primary biomechanical outcome. Spines were loaded quasi-statically up to 1.5 N-m in 0.5 N-m increments and ROM at the C5-C6 index level was recorded. Each specimen was tested in the following conditions: 1. Intact 2. Discectomy+anchored cage (STA) 3. Anchored cage (screws removed)+anterior locking plate (ALP) 4. Anchored cage only, without screws or plates (CO) RESULTS: ROM at the C5-C6 level was not statistically different in any motion plane between the STA and ALP treatment conditions (p>.407). STA demonstrated significant reductions in flexion/extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation ROM when compared with the CO condition (p<.022).ConclusionsIn this in vitro biomechanical study, the anchored cage with three integrated screws afforded biomechanical stability comparable to that of the standard interbody cage+anterior plate cervical spine fusion approach. Due to its low profile design, this anchored cage device may avoid morbidities associated with standard anterior plating, such as dysphagia.Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

What will the 'Medical Journal of You' look like?

Start your free 21 day trial now.

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.