POROUS NITI IMPLANTS IN SURGICAL TREATMENT OF LUMBAR SPINE DEGENERATIVE DISEASE
Abstract
Objective. The assessment of porous NiTi interbody implants use in various decompressive and stabilizing operations for lumbar spine degenerative diseases.
Material and methods. Porous NiTi interbody implants were used in 459 patients operated on for lumbar spine degenerative disease. Various types of stabilizing and decompressivestabilizing surgical procedures were performed in all cases. Operations were performed through anterior extraperitoneal or posterior approaches, and endoscopically through abdominal approach. Surgical treatment results were studied at 3- to 24-months follow-up. Pain syndrome dynamics was evaluated for by Visual Analog Scale, Oswestry Disability Index score. X-ray, MRI, and CT findings provided the evidence of interbody block formation after spondylodesis. Radiologic observation included the measurement of interbody height and of segmental angular flexion-extension difference (the range of segmental angulation in flexion-extension).
Results. Functional results in 18-20 months after surgery were good or satisfactory in 94.1 % of cases. Radiological observation has shown no one case of interbody implant fracture and migration into vertebral bodies. Implant migration within interbody space was observed in 4 cases (0.9 %). Radiological and CT observation confirmed the bone integration properties of the NiTi: the bone tissue accretion at implant was noted with a consecutive formation of interbody bone-metal block. In 94.8 % of cases the operated spine segments were stable that is in agreement with literature data on the effective application of other interbody implants.
Conclusion. Porous NiTi implants can be successfully used for interbody fusion of different kinds. Nickel titanium provides a formation of interbody bone-metal block without autologous bone application that makes a surgery more simple and less traumatic.
About the Author
Aleksandr Evgenyevich Simonovich
Novosibirsk Research Institute of Traumatology and Orthopaedics
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
References
1. Биосовместимые материалы и имплантаты с памятью формы / Под ред. Гюнтера В.Э. Томск, 2001.
2. Грунтовский Г.Х., Клепач Н.С., Михайлов С.Р. Экспериментальное исследование систем наружной транспедикуляроной стабилизации и управляемой коррекции позвоночника // Ортопед., травматол. и протезир. 1993. № 1. С. 8-13.
3. Корж Н.А., Барыш А.Е. Керамоспондилодез в хирургии шейного отдела позвоночника // Ортопед., травматол. и протезир. 1998. № 3. С. 94-95.
4. Корж Н.А., Литвинов Л.А., Голухова А.Г. и др. Стабилизация шейного отдела позвоночника имплантатами из керамики и монокристаллов // Ортезирование, экспресс-ортезирование и биоматериалы в ортопед. и травматол. Харьков, 1987. С. 68-70.
5. Фомичев Н.Г., Гюнтер В.Э. Корнилов Н.В. и др. Новые технологии в хирургии позвоночника с использованием пористых имплантатов с памятью формы. Томск, 2002.
6. Хвисюк Н.И., Чикунов А.С., Костицкий М.М. Совершенствование спондилодеза при осложненных повреждениях шейного отдела позвоночника // Ортопед., травматол. и протезир. 1998. № 3. С. 6-9.
7. Хвисюк Н.И., Шевченко С.Д. Некоторые особенности костной пластики при операциях на позвоночнике // VI съезд травматол.-ортопед. УкрССР: Тез. докл. Киев, 1971. С. 131-133.
8. Abumi K., Panjabi M.M., Kramer K.M., et al. Biomechanical evaluation of lumbar spinal stability after graded facetectomies // Spine. 1990. Vol. 15. P. 1142-1147.
9. Agazzi S., Reverdin A., May D. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion with cages: an independent review of 71 cases // J. Neurosurg. Spine. 1999. Vol. 91. P. 186-192.
10. Benton B.F., Calandruccio R.A. Surgical technic of anterior lumbar fusion // Am. Surg. 1966. Vol. 32. P. 134-136.
11. Boden S.D., Martin C., Rudolph R., et al. Increase of motion between lumbar vertebrae after excision of the capsule and cartilage of the facets. A cadaver study // J. Bone Joint Surg. (Am.). 1994. Vol. 76. P. 1847-1853.
12. Brantigan J.W., Steffee A.D., Lewis M.L., et al. Lumbar interbody fusion using the Brantigan I/F cage for posterior lumbar interbody fusion and the variable pedicle screw placement system: two-year results from a Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption clinical trial // Spine. 2000. Vol. 25. P. 1437-1446.
13. Buehler W.J., Wang F.E. A summary of recent research on the nitinol alloys and their potential applications in ocean engineering // Ocean. Eng. 1968. Vol. 1. P. 105-120.
14. Crock H.V. Anterior lumbar interbody fusion: indications for its use and notes on surgical technique // Clin. Orthop. 1982. Vol. 1. P. 157-163.
15. Dennis S., Watkins R., Landaker S., et al. Comparison of disc space heights after anterior lumbar interbody fusion // Spine. 1989. Vol. 14. P. 876-878.
16. Eck K.R., Bridwell K.H., Ungacta F.F., et al. Analysis of titanium mesh cages in adults with minimum two-year follow-up // Spine. 2000. Vol. 25. P. 2407-2415.
17. Elias W.J., Simmons N.E., Kaptain G.J., et al. Complications of posterior lumbar interbody fusion when using a titanium threaded cage device // J. Neurosurg. Spine. 2000. Vol. 93. P. 45-52.
18. Fraser R.D. Interbody, posterior, and combined lumbar fusions // Spine. 1995. Vol. 20. P. 167S-177S.
19. Frymoyer J.W., Selby D.K. Segmental instability. Rationale for treatment // Spine. 1985. Vol. 10. P. 280-286.
20. Gil F.J., Planell J.A. Effect of Copper addition on the superelastic behaviour of Ni-Ti shape memory alloys for orthodontic applications // J. Biomed. Mater. Res. 1999. Vol. 48. P. 682-688.
21. Delay Law and New Class of Materials and Implants in Medicine. Gunter, V.E., ed. STT Publishing, Northampton, MA, USA. 2000.
22. Hutter C.G. Posterior intervertebral body fusion. A 25-year study // Clin. Orthop. 1983. Vol. 1. P. 86-96.
23. Itin V., Gyunter V., Shabalovskaya S., et al. Mechanical Properties and Shape Memory of Porous Nitinol // Materials Characterisation. 1994. Vol. 32. P. 179-187.
24. Johnsson B., Akesson M., Johnsson K., et al. Low risk for vertebral slipping after decompression with facet joint preserving technique for lumbar spinal stenosis // Eur. Spine J. 1992. Vol. 1. P. 100-104.
25. Johnsson K.E., Willner S., Johnsson B. Postoperative instability after decompression for lumbar spine stenosis // Spine. 1986. Vol. 11. P. 107-110
26. Karpinski M.R., Szymanska M. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion and cages // Chir. Narzadow. Ruchu Ortop. Pol. 1999. Vol. 64. P. 463-470.
27. Kiviluoto O., Santavirta S., Salenius P., et al. Postero-lateral spine fusion. A 1-4-year follow-up of 80 consecutive patients // Acta Orthop. Scand. 1985. Vol. 56. P.152-154.
28. Kuslich S.D., Danielson G., Dowdle J.D., et al. Four-year follow-up results of lumbar spine arthrodesis using the Bagby and Kuslich lumbar fusion cage // Spine. 2000. Vol. 25. P. 2656-2662.
29. Lin P.M. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion technique: complications and pitfalls // Clin. Orthop. 1985. Vol. 1. P. 90-102.
30. Matge G., Leclercq T.A. Rationale for interbody fusion with threaded titanium cages at cervical and lumbar levels. Results on 357 cases // Acta Neurochir. (Wien). 2000. Vol. 142. P. 425-433.
31. McAfee P.C. Interbody fusion cages in reconstructive operations on the spine // J. Bone Joint Surg. Am. 1999. Vol. 81. P. 859-880.
32. Pavlov P.W., Spruit M., Havinga M., et al. Anterior lumbar interbody fusion with threaded fusion cages and autologous bone grafts // Eur. Spine J. 2000. Vol. 9. P. 224-229.
33. Ray C.D. Threaded fusion cages for lumbar interbody fusions. An economic comparison with 360 degrees fusions // Spine. 1997. Vol. 22. P. 681-685.
34. Ray C.D. Threaded titanium cages for lumbar interbody fusions // Spine. 1997. Vol. 22. P. 667-679.
35. Regan J.J., Yuan H., McAfee P.C. Laparoscopic fusion of the lumbar spine: minimally invasive spine surgery. A prospective multicenter study evaluating open and laparoscopic lumbar fusion // Spine. 1999. Vol. 24. P. 402-411.
36. Rish B.L. A comparative evaluation of posterior lumbar interbody fusion for disc disease // Spine. 1985. Vol. 10. P. 855-857.
37. Sacks S. Anterior interbody fusion of the lumbar spine. Indications and results in 200 cases // Clin. Orthop. 1966. Vol. 1. P. 163-170.
38. Shape Memory Biomaterials and Implants. Proceedings of International Conference. June 28-30, 2001, Tomsk, RUSSIA / Ed. by V.E.Gunter. Northampton, MA: STT, 2001.
39. Stauffer R.N., Coventry M.B. Anterior interbody lumbar fusion. Analysis of Mayo Clinic series // J. Bone Joint Surg. Am. 1972. Vol. 54. P. 756-768.
40. Steffen T., Tsantrizos A., Fruth I., et al. Cages: design and concepts // Eur. Spine J. 2000. Vol. 9. P. S89-S94.
41. Tullberg T. Failure of a carbon fiber implant. A case report // Spine. 1998. Vol. 23. P. 1804-1806.
42. Zdeblick T.A. Laparoscopic spinal fusion // Orthop. Clin. North Am. 1998. Vol. 29. P. 635-645.
Review
For citations:
Simonovich A.E. POROUS NITI IMPLANTS IN SURGICAL TREATMENT OF LUMBAR SPINE DEGENERATIVE DISEASE. Russian Journal of Spine Surgery (Khirurgiya Pozvonochnika). 2004;(4):8-17. (In Russ.)
Email this article 