An Immunologic and Biomechanical Comparison of Polyether Ether Ketone-Zeolite and Polyether Ether Ketone Interbody Fusion Devices.

STUDY DESIGN: A laboratory study comparing polyether ether ketone (PEEK)-zeolite and PEEK spinal implants in an ovine model. OBJECTIVE: This study challenges a conventional spinal implant material, PEEK, to PEEK-zeolite using a nonplated cervical ovine model. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Although widely used for spinal implants due to its material properties, PEEK is hydrophobic, resulting in poor osseointegration, and elicits a mild nonspecific foreign body response. Zeolites are negatively charged aluminosilicate materials that are hypothesized to reduce this pro-inflammatory response when used as a compounding material with PEEK. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fourteen skeletally mature sheep were, each, implanted with one PEEK-zeolite interbody device and one PEEK interbody device. Both devices were packed with autograft and allograft material and randomly assigned to one of 2 cervical disc levels. The study involved 2 survival time points (12 and 26 weeks) and biomechanical, radiographic, and immunologic endpoints. One sheep expired from complications not related to the device or procedure. A biomechanical evaluation was based on measures of segmental flexibility, using 6 degrees of freedom pneumatic spine tester. Radiographic evaluation was performed using microcomputed tomography scans in a blinded manner by 3 physicians. Levels of the pro-inflammatory cytokines, interleukin (IL)-1ß, IL-6, and tumor necrosis factor-alpha at the implant, were quantified using immunohistochemistry. RESULTS: PEEK-zeolite and PEEK exhibited an equivalent range of motion in flexion extension, lateral bending, and axial torsion. A motion was significantly reduced for implanted devices at both time points as compared with native segments. Radiographic assessments of fusion and bone formation were similar for both devices. PEEK-zeolite exhibited lower levels of IL-1ß ( P = 0.0003) and IL-6 ( P = 0.03). CONCLUSION: PEEK-zeolite interbody fusion devices provide initial fixation substantially equivalent to PEEK implants but exhibit a reduced pro-inflammatory response. PEEK-zeolite devices may reduce the chronic inflammation and fibrosis previously observed with PEEK devices.

Current Concepts of Contemporary Expandable Lumbar Interbody Fusion Cage Designs, Part 2: Feasibility Assessment of an Endplate Conforming Bidirectional Expandable Interbody Cage.

BACKGROUND: Expandable cages that allow for bidirectional expansion, in both height and width, may offer benefits over traditional expandable cages or static cages. Effective stiffness must also be considered, as implants with exceedingly high stiffness may increase subsidence risk and reduce graft loading. METHODS: A retrospective case series of 7 patients were assessed with computed tomography (CT) scan at the final 1-year follow-up to evaluate the interbody fusion and configuration of the expandable cage related to the endplates within the intervertebral space. CT scans were reformatted using cage's tantalum markers as fiducials for single-plane orientation for each intervertebral cage. Device height and width at maximum in situ expansion was measured at its anterior and posterior aspects to evaluate implant deformation. The new bone volume within each cage was measured from the same CT scan data sets and by the Bridwell classification of interbody fusion. RESULTS: The average difference between medial and lateral height measurements was 1.82 mm (±1.08) at the device's anterior aspect and 1.41 mm (±0.98) at the posterior aspect. The average difference between medial and lateral heights was 18.55% (±9.34) anteriorly and 15.49% (±9.24) posteriorly. There was a successful fusion in all 7 patients, as evidenced by measurable bone volume in the center of each interbody cage with an average of 586.42 mm3 (±237.06). CONCLUSION: The authors demonstrated the feasibility of successfully using bidirectionally expandable multimaterial cages to achieve interbody fusion. These composite open-architecture cages were found to conform to each patient's endplate configuration. The authors' observations support the concept of material selection impacting the effective construct stiffness. The design investigated by the authors provided sufficient anterior column support and successful fusion in all patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.

Current Concepts of Contemporary Expandable Lumbar Interbody Fusion Cage Designs, Part 1: An Editorial on Their Biomechanical Characteristics.

BACKGROUND: Bidirectional expandable designs for lumbar interbody fusion cages are the latest iteration of expandable spacers employed to address some of the common problems inherent to static interbody fusion cages. OBJECTIVE: To describe the rationales for contemporary bidirectional, multimaterial expandable lumbar interbody fusion cage designs to achieve in situ expansion for maximum anterior column support while decreasing insertion size during minimal-access surgeries. METHODS: The authors summarize the current concepts behind expandable spinal fusion open architecture cage designs focusing on advanced minimally invasive spinal surgery techniques, such as endoscopy. A cage capable of bidirectional expansion in both height and width to address constrained surgical access problems was of particular interest to the authors while they analyzed the relationship between implant material stiffness and geometric design regarding the risk of subsidence and reduced graft loading. CONCLUSIONS: Biomechanical advantages of new bidirectional, multimaterial expandable interbody fusion cages allow insertion through minimal surgical access and combine the advantages of proven device configurations and advanced material selection. The final construct stiffness is sufficient to provide immediate anterior column support while accommodating reduced sizes required for minimally invasive surgery applications. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 7.

Bidirectional Expandable Technology for Transforaminal or Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Retrospective Analysis of Safety and Performance.

BACKGROUND: Expandable devices for transforaminal or posterior lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF and PLIF, respectively) may enable greater restoration of disc height, foraminal height, and stability within the interbody space than static spacers. Medial-lateral expansion may also increase stability and resistance to subsidence. This study evaluates the clinical and radiographic outcomes from early experience with a bidirectional expandable device. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of a continuous series of patients across 3 sites who had previously undergone TLIF or PLIF surgery with a bidirectional expandable interbody fusion device (FlareHawk, Integrity Implants, Inc) at 1 or 2 contiguous levels between L2 and S1. Outcomes included the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), a visual analog scale (VAS) for back pain or leg pain, radiographic fusion by 1 year of follow-up, subsidence, device migration, and adverse events (AE). RESULTS: There were 58 eligible patients with radiographs for 1-year fusion assessments and 45 patients with ODI, VAS back pain, or VAS leg pain data at baseline and a mean follow-up of 4.5 months. The ODI, VAS back pain, and VAS leg pain scores improved significantly from baseline to final follow-up, with mean improvements of 14.6 ± 19.1, 3.4 ± 2.6, and 3.9 ± 3.4 points (P < .001 for each), respectively. In addition, 58% of patients achieved clinically significant improvements in ODI, 76% in VAS back pain, and 71% in VAS leg pain. By 1 year, 96.6% of patients and 97.4% of levels were considered fused. There were zero cases of device subsidence and 1 case of device migration (1.7%). There were zero device-related AEs, 1 intraoperative dural tear, and 3 subsequent surgical interventions. CONCLUSIONS: The fusion rate, improvements in patient-reported outcomes, and the AEs observed are consistent with those of other devices. The bidirectional expansion mechanism may provide other important clinical value, but further studies will be required to elucidate the unique advantages. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.

Comparative analysis of the lateral and posterolateral trajectories for fixation of the sacroiliac joint-a cadaveric study.

BACKGROUND: A number of minimally invasive sacroiliac (SI) joint fusion solutions for placing implants exist, with reduced post-operative pain and improved outcomes compared to open procedures. The objective of this study was to compare two MIS SI joint fusion approaches that place implants directly across the joint by comparing the ilium and sacrum bone characteristics and SI joint separation along the implant trajectories. METHODS: Nine cadaveric specimens (n = 9) were CT scanned and the left and right ilium and sacrum were segmented. The bone density, bone volume fraction, and SI joint gap distance were calculated along lateral and posterolateral trajectories and compared using analysis of variance between the two orientations. RESULTS: Iliac bone density, indicated by the mean Hounsfield Unit, was significantly greater for each lateral trajectory compared to posterolateral. The volume of cortical bone in the ilium was greater for the middle lateral trajectory compared to all others and for the top and bottom lateral trajectories compared to both posterolateral trajectories. Cortical density was greater in the ilium for all lateral trajectories compared to posterolateral. The bone fraction was significantly greater in all lateral trajectories compared to posterolateral in the ilium. No differences in cortical volume, cortical density, or cancellous density were found between trajectories in the sacrum. The ilium was significantly greater in density compared with the sacrum when compared irrespective of trajectory (p < 0.001). The posterolateral trajectories had a significantly larger SI joint gap than the lateral trajectories (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Use of the lateral approach for minimally invasive SI fusion allows the implant to interact with bone across a significantly smaller joint space. This interaction with increased cortical bone volume and density may afford better fixation with a lower risk of pull-out or implant loosening when compared to the posterolateral approach.