. 2023 Mar 29;15(3):e36845.
doi: 10.7759/cureus.36845.
eCollection 2023 Mar.
Affiliations
Affiliations
- 1 Medical Device Testing, SpineServ GmbH & Co. KG, Ulm, DEU.
- 2 Spine Surgery, SpineServ GmbH & Co. KG, Ulm, DEU.
- 3 Orthopedics, Ortho HUB Ventures UG, Filderstadt, DEU.
Item in Clipboard
Annette Kienle et al.
Cureus.
.
Display options
Format
. 2023 Mar 29;15(3):e36845.
doi: 10.7759/cureus.36845.
eCollection 2023 Mar.
Affiliations
- 1 Medical Device Testing, SpineServ GmbH & Co. KG, Ulm, DEU.
- 2 Spine Surgery, SpineServ GmbH & Co. KG, Ulm, DEU.
- 3 Orthopedics, Ortho HUB Ventures UG, Filderstadt, DEU.
Item in Clipboard
Display options
Format
Abstract
Background Anterior cage migration in anterior lumbar interbody fusion is a serious complication. To address this risk, cage designs are now available with integrated screw or blade fixation or specially designed surface geometries with large teeth or ridges. However, the implantation technique itself has not yet been addressed as a potential risk factor for cage migration. This study aimed to investigate whether a cage that is implantable without gouging the vertebral endplates has improved resistance to anterior migration. Methodology A novel three-piece modular cage was inserted between two vertebral body replacements (polyurethane (PU) foam grade 15 pcf) in two ways. In group 1 (modular), the cage was inserted in a wedge within a wedge fashion according to the manufacturer’s instructions such that damage to the PU foam was minimized. In group 2 (mono-bloc), the modular cage was inserted pre-assembled as a one-piece, mono-bloc device. This insertion method required impaction and increased the potential of gouging the PU surfaces. Then, an axial preload was applied to the PU test blocks to simulate the preload on the spine in vivo and an anteriorly direct expulsion force was applied to the cages. Results The mean expulsion yield load in the test group with modular implantation was 392 ± 19 N compared to 287 ± 16 N in the test group where the mono-bloc implants were inserted and endplate gouging occurred. This difference was statistically significant (p < 0.05). Thus, the onset of cage migration occurred at significantly higher loads in the test group with modular insertion without endplate gouging compared to one-piece impaction with gouging taking place. In contrast, the stiffness and the ultimate load were similar in both test groups (p > 0.05). Conclusions This study showed that the cage insertion technique may have a significant effect on the cage migration risk. Prevention of endplate gouging during cage implantation has the potential to improve the primary stability of the cage.
Keywords:
alif; anterior lumbar interbody fusion; biomechanics; endplate gouging; expulsion; failure; implant migration; mechanical test; stand-alone cages.
Copyright © 2023, Kienle et al.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Cite