Anterior lumbar interbody fusion using a barbell-shaped cage: a biomechanical comparison.

Abstract

There are drawbacks to using threaded cylindrical cages (e.g., limited area for bone ingrowth and metal precluding radiographic visualization of bone healing). To somewhat offset these drawbacks, a barbell-shaped cage has been designed. The central core of the barbell can be wrapped with collagen sheets infiltrated with bone morphogenetic protein. The obvious theoretical advantages of a barbell cage have to be weighed against potential biomechanical disadvantages. Our purpose was to compare the biomechanical properties of an anterior lumbar interbody reconstruction using 18-mm-diameter threaded cylindrical cages, with a reconstruction using barbell cages (18-mm diameter and 6 mm wide at both cylindrical ends, with a round 4-mm-diameter bar joining the two ends). Twelve cadaveric lumbar motion segments were tested. Three L5-S1 segments received two threaded cylindrical cages, and three L5-S1 segments received two barbell cages. Three L3-L4 segments received one threaded cylindrical cage, and three L3-L4 segments received one barbell cage. A series of biomechanical loading sequences were carried out on each motion segment, and stiffness curves were obtained. After the biomechanical testing, an axial compressive load was applied to the motion segments until failure. They were then radiographed and bisected through the disc, and the subsidence (or penetration) of the cage(s) in the cancellous bone of the vertebral bodies was measured. There was no difference in terms of stiffness between the motion segments with the threaded cylindrical cage(s) inserted and those with the barbell cage(s) inserted (p > 0.15). The average values of subsidence was 0.96 mm for the threaded cylindrical cage group and 0.80 mm for the barbell cage group (difference not significant: p = 0.38). The results suggest that a reconstruction using barbell cages is a biomechanically acceptable alternative to one using threaded cylindrical cages.