TY - JOUR
T1 - Single-Level In Vitro Kinematic Comparison of Novel Inline Cervical Interbody Devices With Intervertebral Screw, Anchor, or Blade
AU - Arnold, Paul M.
AU - Cheng, Ivan
AU - Harris, Jonathan A.
AU - Hussain, Mir M.
AU - Zhang, Chengmin
AU - Karamian, Brian
AU - Bucklen, Brandon S.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© The Author(s) 2019.
PY - 2019/10/1
Y1 - 2019/10/1
N2 - Study Design: In vitro cadaveric biomechanical study. Objective: To compare the biomechanics of integrated anchor and blade versus traditional screw fixation techniques for interbody fusion. Methods: Fifteen cadaveric cervical spines were divided into 3 equal groups (n = 5). Each spine was tested: intact, after discectomy (simulating an injury model), interbody spacer alone (S), integrated interbody spacer (iSA), and integrated spacer with lateral mass screw and rod fixation (LMS+iS). Each treatment group included integrated spacers with either screw, anchor, or blade integrated spacers. Constructs were tested in flexion-extension (FE), lateral bending (LB), and axial rotation (AR) under pure moments (±1.5 N m). Results: Across all 3 planes, the following range of motion trend was observed: Injured > Intact > S > iSA > LMS+iS. In FE and LB, integrated anchor and blade significantly decreased motion compared with intact and injured conditions, before and after supplemental posterior fixation (P <.05). Comparing tested devices revealed biomechanical equivalence between screw, anchor, and blade fixation methods in all loading modes (P >.05). Conclusion: All integrated interbody devices reduced intact and injured motion; lateral mass screws and rods further stabilized the single motion segment. Comparing screw, anchor, or bladed integrated anterior cervical discectomy and fusion spacers revealed no significant differences.
AB - Study Design: In vitro cadaveric biomechanical study. Objective: To compare the biomechanics of integrated anchor and blade versus traditional screw fixation techniques for interbody fusion. Methods: Fifteen cadaveric cervical spines were divided into 3 equal groups (n = 5). Each spine was tested: intact, after discectomy (simulating an injury model), interbody spacer alone (S), integrated interbody spacer (iSA), and integrated spacer with lateral mass screw and rod fixation (LMS+iS). Each treatment group included integrated spacers with either screw, anchor, or blade integrated spacers. Constructs were tested in flexion-extension (FE), lateral bending (LB), and axial rotation (AR) under pure moments (±1.5 N m). Results: Across all 3 planes, the following range of motion trend was observed: Injured > Intact > S > iSA > LMS+iS. In FE and LB, integrated anchor and blade significantly decreased motion compared with intact and injured conditions, before and after supplemental posterior fixation (P <.05). Comparing tested devices revealed biomechanical equivalence between screw, anchor, and blade fixation methods in all loading modes (P >.05). Conclusion: All integrated interbody devices reduced intact and injured motion; lateral mass screws and rods further stabilized the single motion segment. Comparing screw, anchor, or bladed integrated anterior cervical discectomy and fusion spacers revealed no significant differences.
KW - ACDF
KW - biomechanics
KW - cadaver
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85073049183&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85073049183&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1177/2192568219833055
DO - 10.1177/2192568219833055
M3 - Article
C2 - 31552149
AN - SCOPUS:85073049183
SN - 2192-5682
VL - 9
SP - 697
EP - 707
JO - Global Spine Journal
JF - Global Spine Journal
IS - 7
ER -