Comparison of cage designs for transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: A biomechanical study

Woojin Cho, Chunhui Wu, Amir A. Mehbod, Ensor E. Transfeldt

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

27 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Prior biomechanical studies of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion were primarily focused on various posterior instrumentation options, comparison with other fusion techniques, and cage positioning inside disc space. Few studies investigated the biomechanics of various cage designs in terms of construct stability. Methods: Twelve lumbar motion segments were used in this study. The experimental procedure has two steps: multidirectional flexibility test and cyclic test. In the multidirectional flexibility test, all twelve specimens were tested following intact and five different cages (straight or banana shaped). The straight cages had biconvex or flat profile. In the cyclic test, the twelve specimens were randomly divided into two groups for biconvex and flat cages. Three thousand cycles in axial torsion, lateral bending and flexion extension were applied sequentially and cage migration was measured. Findings: On average, the cage and posterior fixation reduced the range of motion of the intact condition by 40%, 69% and 75% in axial torsion, lateral bending and flexion extension, respectively. There was no statistical difference in construct stability among all five cages. The cage migration (biconvex vs flat) under cyclic loading was less than 0.2 mm and no statistical difference was found. Interpretation: The experimental results suggest that the geometry of cages, including shape (banana or straight), length, and surface profile (biconvex or flat), does not affect construct stability when the cages are used in conjunction with posterior fixation. With posterior fixation and surface serration, cage migration was minimal under cyclic loading for both biconvex and flat cages.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)979-985
Number of pages7
JournalClinical Biomechanics
Volume23
Issue number8
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 2008
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Musa
Articular Range of Motion
Biomechanical Phenomena

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine

Cite this

Comparison of cage designs for transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion : A biomechanical study. / Cho, Woojin; Wu, Chunhui; Mehbod, Amir A.; Transfeldt, Ensor E.

In: Clinical Biomechanics, Vol. 23, No. 8, 10.2008, p. 979-985.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Cho, Woojin ; Wu, Chunhui ; Mehbod, Amir A. ; Transfeldt, Ensor E. / Comparison of cage designs for transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion : A biomechanical study. In: Clinical Biomechanics. 2008 ; Vol. 23, No. 8. pp. 979-985.
@article{e2f649be0e1e4c1b8b9412a0f6375b57,
title = "Comparison of cage designs for transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: A biomechanical study",
abstract = "Background: Prior biomechanical studies of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion were primarily focused on various posterior instrumentation options, comparison with other fusion techniques, and cage positioning inside disc space. Few studies investigated the biomechanics of various cage designs in terms of construct stability. Methods: Twelve lumbar motion segments were used in this study. The experimental procedure has two steps: multidirectional flexibility test and cyclic test. In the multidirectional flexibility test, all twelve specimens were tested following intact and five different cages (straight or banana shaped). The straight cages had biconvex or flat profile. In the cyclic test, the twelve specimens were randomly divided into two groups for biconvex and flat cages. Three thousand cycles in axial torsion, lateral bending and flexion extension were applied sequentially and cage migration was measured. Findings: On average, the cage and posterior fixation reduced the range of motion of the intact condition by 40{\%}, 69{\%} and 75{\%} in axial torsion, lateral bending and flexion extension, respectively. There was no statistical difference in construct stability among all five cages. The cage migration (biconvex vs flat) under cyclic loading was less than 0.2 mm and no statistical difference was found. Interpretation: The experimental results suggest that the geometry of cages, including shape (banana or straight), length, and surface profile (biconvex or flat), does not affect construct stability when the cages are used in conjunction with posterior fixation. With posterior fixation and surface serration, cage migration was minimal under cyclic loading for both biconvex and flat cages.",
author = "Woojin Cho and Chunhui Wu and Mehbod, {Amir A.} and Transfeldt, {Ensor E.}",
year = "2008",
month = "10",
doi = "10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2008.02.008",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "23",
pages = "979--985",
journal = "Clinical Biomechanics",
issn = "0268-0033",
publisher = "Elsevier Limited",
number = "8",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of cage designs for transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

T2 - A biomechanical study

AU - Cho, Woojin

AU - Wu, Chunhui

AU - Mehbod, Amir A.

AU - Transfeldt, Ensor E.

PY - 2008/10

Y1 - 2008/10

N2 - Background: Prior biomechanical studies of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion were primarily focused on various posterior instrumentation options, comparison with other fusion techniques, and cage positioning inside disc space. Few studies investigated the biomechanics of various cage designs in terms of construct stability. Methods: Twelve lumbar motion segments were used in this study. The experimental procedure has two steps: multidirectional flexibility test and cyclic test. In the multidirectional flexibility test, all twelve specimens were tested following intact and five different cages (straight or banana shaped). The straight cages had biconvex or flat profile. In the cyclic test, the twelve specimens were randomly divided into two groups for biconvex and flat cages. Three thousand cycles in axial torsion, lateral bending and flexion extension were applied sequentially and cage migration was measured. Findings: On average, the cage and posterior fixation reduced the range of motion of the intact condition by 40%, 69% and 75% in axial torsion, lateral bending and flexion extension, respectively. There was no statistical difference in construct stability among all five cages. The cage migration (biconvex vs flat) under cyclic loading was less than 0.2 mm and no statistical difference was found. Interpretation: The experimental results suggest that the geometry of cages, including shape (banana or straight), length, and surface profile (biconvex or flat), does not affect construct stability when the cages are used in conjunction with posterior fixation. With posterior fixation and surface serration, cage migration was minimal under cyclic loading for both biconvex and flat cages.

AB - Background: Prior biomechanical studies of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion were primarily focused on various posterior instrumentation options, comparison with other fusion techniques, and cage positioning inside disc space. Few studies investigated the biomechanics of various cage designs in terms of construct stability. Methods: Twelve lumbar motion segments were used in this study. The experimental procedure has two steps: multidirectional flexibility test and cyclic test. In the multidirectional flexibility test, all twelve specimens were tested following intact and five different cages (straight or banana shaped). The straight cages had biconvex or flat profile. In the cyclic test, the twelve specimens were randomly divided into two groups for biconvex and flat cages. Three thousand cycles in axial torsion, lateral bending and flexion extension were applied sequentially and cage migration was measured. Findings: On average, the cage and posterior fixation reduced the range of motion of the intact condition by 40%, 69% and 75% in axial torsion, lateral bending and flexion extension, respectively. There was no statistical difference in construct stability among all five cages. The cage migration (biconvex vs flat) under cyclic loading was less than 0.2 mm and no statistical difference was found. Interpretation: The experimental results suggest that the geometry of cages, including shape (banana or straight), length, and surface profile (biconvex or flat), does not affect construct stability when the cages are used in conjunction with posterior fixation. With posterior fixation and surface serration, cage migration was minimal under cyclic loading for both biconvex and flat cages.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=49649122758&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=49649122758&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2008.02.008

DO - 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2008.02.008

M3 - Article

C2 - 18675496

AN - SCOPUS:49649122758

VL - 23

SP - 979

EP - 985

JO - Clinical Biomechanics

JF - Clinical Biomechanics

SN - 0268-0033

IS - 8

ER -