骨密度与可膨胀椎间融合器植入后的下沉深度相关:生物力学分析

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Austen D Katz, Junho Song, Priya Duvvuri, Shaya Shahsavarani, Alex Ngan, Luke Zappia, David Nuckley, Valerie Coldren, Josh Rubin, David Essig, Jeff Silber, Sheeraz A Qureshi, Sohrab Virk
{"title":"骨密度与可膨胀椎间融合器植入后的下沉深度相关:生物力学分析","authors":"Austen D Katz, Junho Song, Priya Duvvuri, Shaya Shahsavarani, Alex Ngan, Luke Zappia, David Nuckley, Valerie Coldren, Josh Rubin, David Essig, Jeff Silber, Sheeraz A Qureshi, Sohrab Virk","doi":"10.1097/BSD.0000000000001727","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Study design: </strong>Biomechanical analysis.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate the depth of subsidence resulting from an expandable interbody cage at varying bone foam densities.</p><p><strong>Summary of background data: </strong>Expandable interbody cages have been shown to be associated with increased rates of subsidence. It is critical to evaluate all variables which may influence a patient's risk of subsidence following the placement of an expandable interbody cage.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In the first stage of the study, subsidence depth was measured with 1 Nm of input expansion torque. In the second stage, the depth of subsidence was measured following 150 N output force exerted by an expandable interbody cage. Within each stage, different bone foam densities were analyzed, including 5, 10, 15, and 20 pounds per cubic foot (PCF). Five experimental trials were performed for each PCF material, and the mean subsidence depths were calculated. Trials which failed to reach 150 N output force were considered outliers and were excluded from the analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There was an overall decrease in subsidence depth with increasing bone foam density. The mean subsidence depths at 150 N output force were 2.0±0.3 mm for 5 PCF, 1.8±0.2 mm for 10 PCF, 1.1±0.2 mm for 15 PCF, and 1.1±0.2 mm for 20 PCF bone foam. The mean subsidence depths at 1 Nm of input torque were 2.3±0.5 mm for 5 PCF, 2.3±0.5 mm for 10 PCF, 1.2±0.2 mm for 15 PCF, and 1.1±0.1 mm for 20 PCF bone foam.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Depth of subsidence was negatively correlated with bone foam density at both constant input torque and constant endplate force. Because tactile feedback of cage expansion into the subsiding bone cannot be reliably distinguished from true expansion of disc space height, surgeons should take bone quality into account when deploying expandable cages.</p>","PeriodicalId":10457,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Spine Surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Bone Density Correlates With Depth of Subsidence After Expandable Interbody Cage Placement: A Biomechanical Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Austen D Katz, Junho Song, Priya Duvvuri, Shaya Shahsavarani, Alex Ngan, Luke Zappia, David Nuckley, Valerie Coldren, Josh Rubin, David Essig, Jeff Silber, Sheeraz A Qureshi, Sohrab Virk\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/BSD.0000000000001727\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Study design: </strong>Biomechanical analysis.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate the depth of subsidence resulting from an expandable interbody cage at varying bone foam densities.</p><p><strong>Summary of background data: </strong>Expandable interbody cages have been shown to be associated with increased rates of subsidence. It is critical to evaluate all variables which may influence a patient's risk of subsidence following the placement of an expandable interbody cage.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In the first stage of the study, subsidence depth was measured with 1 Nm of input expansion torque. In the second stage, the depth of subsidence was measured following 150 N output force exerted by an expandable interbody cage. Within each stage, different bone foam densities were analyzed, including 5, 10, 15, and 20 pounds per cubic foot (PCF). Five experimental trials were performed for each PCF material, and the mean subsidence depths were calculated. Trials which failed to reach 150 N output force were considered outliers and were excluded from the analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There was an overall decrease in subsidence depth with increasing bone foam density. The mean subsidence depths at 150 N output force were 2.0±0.3 mm for 5 PCF, 1.8±0.2 mm for 10 PCF, 1.1±0.2 mm for 15 PCF, and 1.1±0.2 mm for 20 PCF bone foam. The mean subsidence depths at 1 Nm of input torque were 2.3±0.5 mm for 5 PCF, 2.3±0.5 mm for 10 PCF, 1.2±0.2 mm for 15 PCF, and 1.1±0.1 mm for 20 PCF bone foam.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Depth of subsidence was negatively correlated with bone foam density at both constant input torque and constant endplate force. Because tactile feedback of cage expansion into the subsiding bone cannot be reliably distinguished from true expansion of disc space height, surgeons should take bone quality into account when deploying expandable cages.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10457,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Spine Surgery\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Spine Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0000000000001727\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Spine Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0000000000001727","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究设计生物力学分析:评估可膨胀椎间笼在不同骨泡沫密度下的下沉深度:可膨胀椎间笼已被证明与下沉率增加有关。评估所有可能影响患者放置可膨胀椎间笼后下沉风险的变量至关重要:在研究的第一阶段,以 1 牛米的输入膨胀扭矩测量下沉深度。第二阶段,在可膨胀椎间笼施加 150 牛的输出力后测量下沉深度。在每个阶段中,分析了不同的骨泡沫密度,包括每立方英尺 5 磅、10 磅、15 磅和 20 磅(PCF)。每种 PCF 材料都进行了五次实验,并计算了平均下沉深度。未能达到 150 牛顿输出力的试验被视为异常值,并从分析中排除:结果:随着骨泡沫密度的增加,下沉深度总体上有所减小。输出力为 150 N 时,5 PCF 的平均下沉深度为 2.0±0.3 mm,10 PCF 为 1.8±0.2 mm,15 PCF 为 1.1±0.2 mm,20 PCF 为 1.1±0.2 mm。在输入扭矩为 1 牛米时,5 PCF 的平均下沉深度为 2.3±0.5 毫米,10 PCF 为 2.3±0.5 毫米,15 PCF 为 1.2±0.2 毫米,20 PCF 骨泡沫为 1.1±0.1 毫米:结论:在恒定输入扭矩和恒定终板力条件下,下沉深度与骨泡沫密度呈负相关。由于不能可靠地区分椎间盘间隙高度的真正扩张与骨质下沉中的笼扩张的触觉反馈,因此外科医生在部署可扩张脊柱保持架时应将骨质考虑在内。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Bone Density Correlates With Depth of Subsidence After Expandable Interbody Cage Placement: A Biomechanical Analysis.

Study design: Biomechanical analysis.

Objective: To evaluate the depth of subsidence resulting from an expandable interbody cage at varying bone foam densities.

Summary of background data: Expandable interbody cages have been shown to be associated with increased rates of subsidence. It is critical to evaluate all variables which may influence a patient's risk of subsidence following the placement of an expandable interbody cage.

Methods: In the first stage of the study, subsidence depth was measured with 1 Nm of input expansion torque. In the second stage, the depth of subsidence was measured following 150 N output force exerted by an expandable interbody cage. Within each stage, different bone foam densities were analyzed, including 5, 10, 15, and 20 pounds per cubic foot (PCF). Five experimental trials were performed for each PCF material, and the mean subsidence depths were calculated. Trials which failed to reach 150 N output force were considered outliers and were excluded from the analysis.

Results: There was an overall decrease in subsidence depth with increasing bone foam density. The mean subsidence depths at 150 N output force were 2.0±0.3 mm for 5 PCF, 1.8±0.2 mm for 10 PCF, 1.1±0.2 mm for 15 PCF, and 1.1±0.2 mm for 20 PCF bone foam. The mean subsidence depths at 1 Nm of input torque were 2.3±0.5 mm for 5 PCF, 2.3±0.5 mm for 10 PCF, 1.2±0.2 mm for 15 PCF, and 1.1±0.1 mm for 20 PCF bone foam.

Conclusions: Depth of subsidence was negatively correlated with bone foam density at both constant input torque and constant endplate force. Because tactile feedback of cage expansion into the subsiding bone cannot be reliably distinguished from true expansion of disc space height, surgeons should take bone quality into account when deploying expandable cages.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical Spine Surgery
Clinical Spine Surgery Medicine-Surgery
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
5.30%
发文量
236
期刊介绍: Clinical Spine Surgery is the ideal journal for the busy practicing spine surgeon or trainee, as it is the only journal necessary to keep up to date with new clinical research and surgical techniques. Readers get to watch leaders in the field debate controversial topics in a new controversies section, and gain access to evidence-based reviews of important pathologies in the systematic reviews section. The journal features a surgical technique complete with a video, and a tips and tricks section that allows surgeons to review the important steps prior to a complex procedure. Clinical Spine Surgery provides readers with primary research studies, specifically level 1, 2 and 3 studies, ensuring that articles that may actually change a surgeon’s practice will be read and published. Each issue includes a brief article that will help a surgeon better understand the business of healthcare, as well as an article that will help a surgeon understand how to interpret increasingly complex research methodology. Clinical Spine Surgery is your single source for up-to-date, evidence-based recommendations for spine care.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信