Research progress of interbody fusion cage and its materials

Transcription

1 Chinese Journal of Tissue Engineering Research January 18, 2017 Vol.21, No.2 ( ). [J] (2): DOI: /j.issn ORCID: () BAK Ray Bagby Ray-TFC LT TMC / 1989 :R318 :A : (2017) X 1997 / mm PubMed interbody fusion cage PEEK TMC Research progress of interbody fusion cage and its materials Zhao Bo-ran, Zheng Xiu-jun, Ma Jin-rong (Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, Qingdao , Shandong Province, China) Zhao Bo-ran, Studying for master s degree, Physician, Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, Qingdao , Shandong Province, China ISSN CN /R CODEN: ZLKHAH 315

2 . Abstract BACKGROUND: With the rapid development of technology, most interbody fusion cages have been applied in clinic, but some are still in experimental stage. All fusion cages hold their own distinct characteristics as well as advantages and shortcomings. OBJECTIVE: To clarify the development course of interbody fusion cages and analyze their types in detail, thereby paving ways for its improvement. METHODS: A computer-based search for literatures in CNKI and PubMed databases published from January 1989 to March 2016 was performed using the keywords of interbody fusion cage, PEEK, TMC in English and Chinese, respectively. A total of 106 articles were retrieved and 38 articles were in accordance with the inclusion criteria. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Intervertebral fusion is a major method to treat spinal degenerative diseases. There are a variety of fusion cages in clinic, such as pyramesh, polyetheretherketone and absobable fusion cages. Implants used for fusion cages include autogenous, allogenic and artificial bones as well as bone morphogenetic protein. We introduce the development process of fusion cages in detail, emphasize the commonly used fusion cages and analyze its development in future. In the end, we give our opinions about the development of intervertebral fusion cages. Subject headings: Biocompatible Materials; Spinal Fusion; Bone Morphogenetic Proteins; Tissue Engineering Cite this article: Zhao BR, Zheng XJ, Ma JR. Research progress of interbody fusion cage and its materials. Zhongguo Zuzhi Gongcheng Yanjiu. 2017;21(2): Introduction Kuslich [1] 1988 ( ) 1 Data and methods PubMed ( CNKI ( interbody fusion cage PEEK TMC Results BAK Bagby 1979 ( ) Bagby [1] 1983 Kuslich [2] BAK BAK [3] 1988 BagbyBAK (Threaded fusion cage Ray-TFC) Ray Bagby Ray-TFC [4] 2 Ray-TFC LT(Lumber Tapered) LT 316 P.O. Box 10002, Shenyang

3 . Williams [5] 2LT X [6] 2.2 Brantigan [7] 1991 X [8] JOA Scient X 1997 X [9] Niu [10] 25 ( ) 28 ( ) 12 86% Cabraja [11] 42 (34 8 ) 44 (36 8 ) 28 2 Meier [12] / ISSN CN /R CODEN: ZLKHAH 317

4 . / Yu [13] / 4 Converse [14] 10% 20% 90 MPa 75 MPa / [15] / Wang [16] / [17] 812 Tsou [18] Wu [19] / Wang [20] / / / / [21] / / 14 d / / % 30% Van Dijk [22] 318 P.O. Box 10002, Shenyang

5 . 3.5 kn 7 kn 4 4 CT Krijnen [23] 70/30 L / Kandziora [24] C 3 4 Simth [25] 70/ Hojo [26] / L d / ( 1) A B C 1 / A / B C Lanman [27] % 12 11CT Kinaci [28] CT 92% 50% Jiya [29] 70/ / [30] Ohtori [31] 9 90% An [32] 24 0% 2480% ISSN CN /R CODEN: ZLKHAH 319

6 β β 27 2 [33] Boden [34] %40% Dimar [35] 2( β ) 62 2 McClellan [36] 2 Pradhan [37] 2 Rihn [38] Conclusion CNKI 3 () References [1] Kuslich SD, Bagby G. The BAK in terbody fusion system: earlyclinical results of treatment for chronic low back pain.8 th. NASS Annual Meeting, San Diego, USA, 1993: [2] Kuslich SD, Bagby G. The BAK in terbody fusion system: early clinical results of treatment for chronic low back pain.8 th.nass Annual Meeting, San Diego, USA, 1993: [3] Kuslich SD,Danielson G,Dowdle JD,et al.four-year follow-up results of lumbar spine arthrodesis using the Bagby and Kuslich lumbar fusion cage.spine (Phila a1976). 2000;25(20): [4] Kwon YM,Chind BH. Longterm efficacy of posterior lumbar interbody fusion with standard cages alone in lumbardisc diseases combined with modic changes. J Korean Neurosurg SOC. 2009;46(4): [5] Williams AL, Gornet MF,Burkus JK.CT evaluation of lumbar interbody fusion:current concepts.am J Neuroradiol. 2005; 26(8): P.O. Box 10002, Shenyang

7 . [6] Zeng R,Cui L,Jiang K, et al. In Vitro corrosion and cytocompatibility of a microarc oxidation coating and poly(l-lactic acid) composite coating on Mg-1Li-1Ca alloy for arthopedic implants. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces. 2016;8(15): [7] Brantigan JW,Steffee AD,Geiger JM.A carbon fiber implant to aid interbody lumbar fusion. Mechanical testing.spine(phila Pa 1976).1991;16(6):S [8],. [J]., 2015,19(12): [9],,,. [J].,2015, 31(8): [10] Niu C, Liao J, Chen W, et al. Outcomes of interbody fusion cages used in 1 and 2-levels anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: titanium cages versus polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2010;23: [11] Cabraja M, Oezdemir S, Koeppen D, et al. Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: comparison of titanium and polyetheretherketone cages. BMC Musculoskel Disorders. 2012;13:172. [12] Meier U, Kemmesies D. Experiences with six different intervertebral disc spacers for spondylodesis of the cervical spine. Orthopade. 2004;33: [13] Yu S, Hariram KP, Kumar R, et al. In vitro apatite formation and itsgrowth kinetics on hydroxyapatite/polyetheretherketone biocomposites. Biomaterials. 2005;26(15): [14] Converse GL, Yue W, Roeder RK. Processing and tensile propertiesofhydroxyapatite-whisker-reinforced polyetheretherketone. Biomaterials. 2007;28(6): [15],,,. [J].,2001,22(4): [16] Wang ZQ Gao DR. Friction and wear properties of stainlesssteel sliding against polyetheretherketone and carbonfiber-reinforced polyetheretherketone under natural seawater lubrication. Mat Des. 2014; [17],,,. - [J]., 2013, 29(1): [18] Tsou HK, Hsieh PY, Chi MH, et al. Improved osteoblast compatibilityof medical-grade polyetheretherketone using arc ionplated rutile/anatasetitanium dioxide films for spinal implants. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2012;100(10): [19] Wu X, Liu X, Wei J, et al. Nano-TiO2/PEEK bioactive composite asa bone substitute material: in vitro and in vivo studies. Int Nanomed. 2012;7: [20] Wang L,He S,Wu X,et al. Polyetheretherketone/ nano-fluorohydroxyapatite composite with antimicrobial activity and osseointegration properties.biomaterials. 2014; 35(25): [21],,. PEEK-HA-CF [J]., 2008,22(1): [22] Van Dijk M,Smit TH,Sugihara S,et al.the effect of cage stiffness on the rate of lumbar interbody fusion - An in vivomodel using poly(l-lactic acid) and titanium cages. Spine (Phila Pa 1976).2002;27(7): [23] Krijnen M R, Smit TH, Strijkers GJ, et a.l The u se of high-resolu-tion magnetic resonance imaing form on itoring interbody fusion andb ioabsorbable cages:an ex vivo pilot study. Neurosurg Focus. 2004;16(3):E3. [24] Kandziora F, Pflugmacher R, Scholz M, et al. Bioabsorbable interbody cages in a sheep cervical spine fusion model. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004;29(17): [25] Smith TH, Müller R, van Dijk M, et al. Changes in bone architecture during spinal fusion: Three years follow-up and the role of cage stiffness.spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003;28(16): [26] Hojo Y, Kotani Y, Ito M, et al. A biomechanical and histological evaluation of a bioresorbable lumbar interbody fusion cage. Biomaterials. 2005;26(15): [27] Lanman TH, Hopkins TJ. Lumbar interbody fusion after treat-ment with recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein- 2 added to poly ( L- lactide- co- D, L- lactide) bioresorbable implants. Neurosurg Focus. 2004;16(3):E9. [28] Kinaci A Neuhaus V Ring DC. Trends in bone graft use in the Unit-ed States. Orthopedics. 2014;37(9): [29] Jiya T, Smit T, Deddens J, et al. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion using nonresorbable poly-ether-ether-ketone versus resorbable poly-llactide-co-d, L-lactide fusion devices: a prospective, randomized study to assess fusion and clinical outcome. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009;34(3): [30] Shibuya N, Jupiter DC. Bone graft substitute:allograft and xenograft. Clin Podiatr Med Surg. 2015;32(1): [31] Ohtori S, Suzuki M, Koshi T, et al. Single-level instrumentedposterolateral fusion of the lumbar spine with a local bone graftversus an iliac crest bonegraft:a prospective randomized study with a 2-year follow-up Eur Spine J. 2011; 20(4): [32] An HS, Lynch K, Toth J. Prospective comparison of autograft vs. allograft for adult posterolateral lumbar spinefusion: differences among freeze-dried frozen and mixed grafts. J Spinal Disord. 1995;8(2): [33] Blattert TR, Delling G, Dalal PS, et al. Successful transpedicular lumbar interbody fusion by means of a composite of osteogenic protein-1 (rhbmp-7) and hydroxyapatite carrier: a comparison with autograft and hydroxyapatite in the sheep spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2002;27: [34] Boden SD, Martin GJ, Horton WC, et al. Laparoscopic anterior spinal arthrodesis with rhbmp-2 in a titanium interbody threaded cage. J Spinal Disord. 1998;11: [35] Dimar JR, Glassman SD, Burkus KJ, et al. Clinical outcomes and fusion success at 2 years of single-level instrumented posterolateral fusions with recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2/compression resistant matrix versus iliac crest bone graft. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006;31: ; discussion [36] McClellan JW, Mulconrey DS, Forbes RJ, et al. Vertebral bone resorption after transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with bone morphogenetic protein (rhbmp-2). J Spinal Disord Tech. 2006;19: [37] Pradhan BB, Bae HW, Dawson EG, et al. Graft resorption with the use of bone morphogenetic protein: lessons from anterior lumbar interbody fusion using femoral ring allografts and recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006;31:E277-E284. [38] Rihn JA, Patel R, Makda J, et al. Complications associated withsingle-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion Spine J. 2009;9(8): ISSN CN /R CODEN: ZLKHAH 321