Loading…

In vitro stabilizing effect of a transforaminal compared with two posterior lumbar interbody fusion cages

An in vitro biomechanical flexibility test on different lumbar interbody fusion cages using monosegmental lumbar spine specimens. To investigate the stabilizing effect of a transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) cage compared with two established posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) cages...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Spine (Philadelphia, Pa. 1976) Pa. 1976), 2005-11, Vol.30 (22), p.E665-E670
Main Authors: Kettler, Annette, Schmoelz, Werner, Kast, Erich, Gottwald, Maria, Claes, Lutz, Wilke, Hans-Joachim
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c317t-f93e3b7e04e0913a8f2152a4edb366efb5d3591eeacdc1155ca6744b9537bc6e3
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c317t-f93e3b7e04e0913a8f2152a4edb366efb5d3591eeacdc1155ca6744b9537bc6e3
container_end_page E670
container_issue 22
container_start_page E665
container_title Spine (Philadelphia, Pa. 1976)
container_volume 30
creator Kettler, Annette
Schmoelz, Werner
Kast, Erich
Gottwald, Maria
Claes, Lutz
Wilke, Hans-Joachim
description An in vitro biomechanical flexibility test on different lumbar interbody fusion cages using monosegmental lumbar spine specimens. To investigate the stabilizing effect of a transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) cage compared with two established posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) cages. TLIF using interbody fusion cages is gaining more and more popularity in the treatment of degenerative disc disease. However, only little is known on its biomechanical behavior. Eighteen intact human lumbar spine segments were tested for flexibility in a specially designed spine tester. Pure moments were applied in the three main planes, and range of motion and neutral zone were determined. Then, TLIF using the sickle-shaped MOON cage (AMT AG), PLIF using the cubic Stryker cages (Stryker Orthopaedics), or PLIF using the threaded BAK cages (Zimmer Spinetech) was carried out and the specimens tested again. The stability after implantation of the MOON TLIF cage did not significantly differ from that after implantation of the cubic Stryker PLIF cages (P > 0.05). In contrast, the threaded BAK PLIF cages had a significantly higher primary stability than both the MOON TLIF and the Stryker PLIF cages in lateral bending, flexion, and extension (P < 0.05) but not in axial rotation (P > 0.05). In terms of its stabilizing effect, TLIF using the MOON cage can be recommended as an alternative to PLIF using the cubic Stryker cages. Compared with the threaded BAK PLIF cages, however, the MOON TLIF cage provides a lower primary stability in lateral bending, flexion, and extension.
doi_str_mv 10.1097/01.brs.0000186466.01542.8c
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_68796974</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>68796974</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c317t-f93e3b7e04e0913a8f2152a4edb366efb5d3591eeacdc1155ca6744b9537bc6e3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpFkEtLxTAQhYMoen38BQku3LUmTZo07kR8geBG1yFJJxppm2uSKvrrrXrB2RwGzpnhfAidUFJTouQZobVNuSbL0E5wIWpCW97UndtCK9o2XUVpq7bRijDRVA1nYg_t5_y6-AWjahftUdF0vJVyhcLdhN9DSRHnYmwYwleYnjF4D67g6LHBJZkp-5jMGCYzYBfHtUnQ449QXnD5iHgdc4EUYsLDPFqTcJiW3cb-E_s5hzhhZ54hH6Idb4YMRxs9QE_XV4-Xt9X9w83d5cV95RiVpfKKAbMSCAeiKDOdb5ZKhkNvmRDgbduzVlEA43q39GydEZJzq1omrRPADtDp3911im8z5KLHkB0Mg5kgzlmLTiqhJF-M539Gl2LOCbxepzCa9Kkp0T-gNaF6Aa3_Qetf0LpzS_h482W2I_T_0Q1Z9g0Pr32j</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>68796974</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>In vitro stabilizing effect of a transforaminal compared with two posterior lumbar interbody fusion cages</title><source>HEAL-Link subscriptions: Lippincott Williams &amp; Wilkins</source><creator>Kettler, Annette ; Schmoelz, Werner ; Kast, Erich ; Gottwald, Maria ; Claes, Lutz ; Wilke, Hans-Joachim</creator><creatorcontrib>Kettler, Annette ; Schmoelz, Werner ; Kast, Erich ; Gottwald, Maria ; Claes, Lutz ; Wilke, Hans-Joachim</creatorcontrib><description>An in vitro biomechanical flexibility test on different lumbar interbody fusion cages using monosegmental lumbar spine specimens. To investigate the stabilizing effect of a transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) cage compared with two established posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) cages. TLIF using interbody fusion cages is gaining more and more popularity in the treatment of degenerative disc disease. However, only little is known on its biomechanical behavior. Eighteen intact human lumbar spine segments were tested for flexibility in a specially designed spine tester. Pure moments were applied in the three main planes, and range of motion and neutral zone were determined. Then, TLIF using the sickle-shaped MOON cage (AMT AG), PLIF using the cubic Stryker cages (Stryker Orthopaedics), or PLIF using the threaded BAK cages (Zimmer Spinetech) was carried out and the specimens tested again. The stability after implantation of the MOON TLIF cage did not significantly differ from that after implantation of the cubic Stryker PLIF cages (P &gt; 0.05). In contrast, the threaded BAK PLIF cages had a significantly higher primary stability than both the MOON TLIF and the Stryker PLIF cages in lateral bending, flexion, and extension (P &lt; 0.05) but not in axial rotation (P &gt; 0.05). In terms of its stabilizing effect, TLIF using the MOON cage can be recommended as an alternative to PLIF using the cubic Stryker cages. Compared with the threaded BAK PLIF cages, however, the MOON TLIF cage provides a lower primary stability in lateral bending, flexion, and extension.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0362-2436</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1528-1159</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1097/01.brs.0000186466.01542.8c</identifier><identifier>PMID: 16284577</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States</publisher><subject>Biocompatible Materials ; Biomechanical Phenomena ; Humans ; In Vitro Techniques ; Ketones ; Lumbar Vertebrae - physiology ; Lumbar Vertebrae - surgery ; Materials Testing ; Polyethylene Glycols ; Range of Motion, Articular ; Spinal Fusion - instrumentation ; Spinal Fusion - methods</subject><ispartof>Spine (Philadelphia, Pa. 1976), 2005-11, Vol.30 (22), p.E665-E670</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c317t-f93e3b7e04e0913a8f2152a4edb366efb5d3591eeacdc1155ca6744b9537bc6e3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c317t-f93e3b7e04e0913a8f2152a4edb366efb5d3591eeacdc1155ca6744b9537bc6e3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16284577$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Kettler, Annette</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schmoelz, Werner</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kast, Erich</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gottwald, Maria</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Claes, Lutz</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wilke, Hans-Joachim</creatorcontrib><title>In vitro stabilizing effect of a transforaminal compared with two posterior lumbar interbody fusion cages</title><title>Spine (Philadelphia, Pa. 1976)</title><addtitle>Spine (Phila Pa 1976)</addtitle><description>An in vitro biomechanical flexibility test on different lumbar interbody fusion cages using monosegmental lumbar spine specimens. To investigate the stabilizing effect of a transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) cage compared with two established posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) cages. TLIF using interbody fusion cages is gaining more and more popularity in the treatment of degenerative disc disease. However, only little is known on its biomechanical behavior. Eighteen intact human lumbar spine segments were tested for flexibility in a specially designed spine tester. Pure moments were applied in the three main planes, and range of motion and neutral zone were determined. Then, TLIF using the sickle-shaped MOON cage (AMT AG), PLIF using the cubic Stryker cages (Stryker Orthopaedics), or PLIF using the threaded BAK cages (Zimmer Spinetech) was carried out and the specimens tested again. The stability after implantation of the MOON TLIF cage did not significantly differ from that after implantation of the cubic Stryker PLIF cages (P &gt; 0.05). In contrast, the threaded BAK PLIF cages had a significantly higher primary stability than both the MOON TLIF and the Stryker PLIF cages in lateral bending, flexion, and extension (P &lt; 0.05) but not in axial rotation (P &gt; 0.05). In terms of its stabilizing effect, TLIF using the MOON cage can be recommended as an alternative to PLIF using the cubic Stryker cages. Compared with the threaded BAK PLIF cages, however, the MOON TLIF cage provides a lower primary stability in lateral bending, flexion, and extension.</description><subject>Biocompatible Materials</subject><subject>Biomechanical Phenomena</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>In Vitro Techniques</subject><subject>Ketones</subject><subject>Lumbar Vertebrae - physiology</subject><subject>Lumbar Vertebrae - surgery</subject><subject>Materials Testing</subject><subject>Polyethylene Glycols</subject><subject>Range of Motion, Articular</subject><subject>Spinal Fusion - instrumentation</subject><subject>Spinal Fusion - methods</subject><issn>0362-2436</issn><issn>1528-1159</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2005</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNpFkEtLxTAQhYMoen38BQku3LUmTZo07kR8geBG1yFJJxppm2uSKvrrrXrB2RwGzpnhfAidUFJTouQZobVNuSbL0E5wIWpCW97UndtCK9o2XUVpq7bRijDRVA1nYg_t5_y6-AWjahftUdF0vJVyhcLdhN9DSRHnYmwYwleYnjF4D67g6LHBJZkp-5jMGCYzYBfHtUnQ449QXnD5iHgdc4EUYsLDPFqTcJiW3cb-E_s5hzhhZ54hH6Idb4YMRxs9QE_XV4-Xt9X9w83d5cV95RiVpfKKAbMSCAeiKDOdb5ZKhkNvmRDgbduzVlEA43q39GydEZJzq1omrRPADtDp3911im8z5KLHkB0Mg5kgzlmLTiqhJF-M539Gl2LOCbxepzCa9Kkp0T-gNaF6Aa3_Qetf0LpzS_h482W2I_T_0Q1Z9g0Pr32j</recordid><startdate>20051115</startdate><enddate>20051115</enddate><creator>Kettler, Annette</creator><creator>Schmoelz, Werner</creator><creator>Kast, Erich</creator><creator>Gottwald, Maria</creator><creator>Claes, Lutz</creator><creator>Wilke, Hans-Joachim</creator><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20051115</creationdate><title>In vitro stabilizing effect of a transforaminal compared with two posterior lumbar interbody fusion cages</title><author>Kettler, Annette ; Schmoelz, Werner ; Kast, Erich ; Gottwald, Maria ; Claes, Lutz ; Wilke, Hans-Joachim</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c317t-f93e3b7e04e0913a8f2152a4edb366efb5d3591eeacdc1155ca6744b9537bc6e3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2005</creationdate><topic>Biocompatible Materials</topic><topic>Biomechanical Phenomena</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>In Vitro Techniques</topic><topic>Ketones</topic><topic>Lumbar Vertebrae - physiology</topic><topic>Lumbar Vertebrae - surgery</topic><topic>Materials Testing</topic><topic>Polyethylene Glycols</topic><topic>Range of Motion, Articular</topic><topic>Spinal Fusion - instrumentation</topic><topic>Spinal Fusion - methods</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Kettler, Annette</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schmoelz, Werner</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kast, Erich</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gottwald, Maria</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Claes, Lutz</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wilke, Hans-Joachim</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Spine (Philadelphia, Pa. 1976)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Kettler, Annette</au><au>Schmoelz, Werner</au><au>Kast, Erich</au><au>Gottwald, Maria</au><au>Claes, Lutz</au><au>Wilke, Hans-Joachim</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>In vitro stabilizing effect of a transforaminal compared with two posterior lumbar interbody fusion cages</atitle><jtitle>Spine (Philadelphia, Pa. 1976)</jtitle><addtitle>Spine (Phila Pa 1976)</addtitle><date>2005-11-15</date><risdate>2005</risdate><volume>30</volume><issue>22</issue><spage>E665</spage><epage>E670</epage><pages>E665-E670</pages><issn>0362-2436</issn><eissn>1528-1159</eissn><abstract>An in vitro biomechanical flexibility test on different lumbar interbody fusion cages using monosegmental lumbar spine specimens. To investigate the stabilizing effect of a transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) cage compared with two established posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) cages. TLIF using interbody fusion cages is gaining more and more popularity in the treatment of degenerative disc disease. However, only little is known on its biomechanical behavior. Eighteen intact human lumbar spine segments were tested for flexibility in a specially designed spine tester. Pure moments were applied in the three main planes, and range of motion and neutral zone were determined. Then, TLIF using the sickle-shaped MOON cage (AMT AG), PLIF using the cubic Stryker cages (Stryker Orthopaedics), or PLIF using the threaded BAK cages (Zimmer Spinetech) was carried out and the specimens tested again. The stability after implantation of the MOON TLIF cage did not significantly differ from that after implantation of the cubic Stryker PLIF cages (P &gt; 0.05). In contrast, the threaded BAK PLIF cages had a significantly higher primary stability than both the MOON TLIF and the Stryker PLIF cages in lateral bending, flexion, and extension (P &lt; 0.05) but not in axial rotation (P &gt; 0.05). In terms of its stabilizing effect, TLIF using the MOON cage can be recommended as an alternative to PLIF using the cubic Stryker cages. Compared with the threaded BAK PLIF cages, however, the MOON TLIF cage provides a lower primary stability in lateral bending, flexion, and extension.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pmid>16284577</pmid><doi>10.1097/01.brs.0000186466.01542.8c</doi></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0362-2436
ispartof Spine (Philadelphia, Pa. 1976), 2005-11, Vol.30 (22), p.E665-E670
issn 0362-2436
1528-1159
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_68796974
source HEAL-Link subscriptions: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
subjects Biocompatible Materials
Biomechanical Phenomena
Humans
In Vitro Techniques
Ketones
Lumbar Vertebrae - physiology
Lumbar Vertebrae - surgery
Materials Testing
Polyethylene Glycols
Range of Motion, Articular
Spinal Fusion - instrumentation
Spinal Fusion - methods
title In vitro stabilizing effect of a transforaminal compared with two posterior lumbar interbody fusion cages
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-29T13%3A25%3A40IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=In%20vitro%20stabilizing%20effect%20of%20a%20transforaminal%20compared%20with%20two%20posterior%20lumbar%20interbody%20fusion%20cages&rft.jtitle=Spine%20(Philadelphia,%20Pa.%201976)&rft.au=Kettler,%20Annette&rft.date=2005-11-15&rft.volume=30&rft.issue=22&rft.spage=E665&rft.epage=E670&rft.pages=E665-E670&rft.issn=0362-2436&rft.eissn=1528-1159&rft_id=info:doi/10.1097/01.brs.0000186466.01542.8c&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E68796974%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c317t-f93e3b7e04e0913a8f2152a4edb366efb5d3591eeacdc1155ca6744b9537bc6e3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=68796974&rft_id=info:pmid/16284577&rfr_iscdi=true