Comparative Study
Evaluation Studies
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Comparison of stiffness and failure load of two cervical spine fixation techniques in an in vitro human model.

OBJECTIVE: Recently, an unpaired threaded cage has been introduced as a fusion device for the cervical spine. No biomechanical comparison of a stand-alone single interbody threaded cage to a standard plated Smith-Robinson construct has been reported. Accordingly, an in vitro biomechanical comparison of a single threaded cylindrical interbody fusion cage versus a plated Smith-Robinson cervical discectomy and fusion construct was conducted to establish whether a single cylindrical interbody cage in the cervical spine would perform mechanically as well as a plated structural interbody graft.

METHODS: Six fresh-frozen human cadaveric cervical spines were used for biomechanical testing. Flexion-extension and load-to-failure testing were performed on two single-level discectomy and interbody fusion constructs from each specimen.

RESULTS: Initial range of motion (ROM) was significantly greater for the specimens implanted with a cage than specimens implanted with a structural graft and plate (9.1 degrees +/- 3.7 degrees vs 5.8 degrees +/- 2.4 degrees ; P = 0.040). Initial stiffness in flexion in caged specimens was significantly less than in plated specimens (0.7 +/- 0.3 vs 0.9 +/- 0.3 Nm/ degrees ; P = 0.028). Cage specimens also failed at a significantly lower load than plated specimens (9.8 +/- 3.5 vs 15.8 +/- 4.1 Nm; P = 0.0104).

CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that a plated Smith-Robinson cervical discectomy and fusion construct provides greater stiffness and failure load and reduced ROM across operated levels than a single interbody cage construct. Although clinical success may not directly correlate with biomechanical data, these results raise concern regarding the use of a single threaded interbody cage as a stand-alone device for cervical interbody fusion.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app