RESUMO
Objectives: Spinal fusion is a widely employed treatment of patients with degenerative disc disease, in which a cage is used to replace the disc for spinal fusion. But it often fails for insufficient mechanical strength and poor osseointegration. Here, we designed a polyether-ether-ketone (PEEK)/tantalum (Ta) composite cage with a biomimetic gradient porous micro-structure, simultaneously enhancing mechanical properties and accelerating osseointegration in spinal fusion. Materials and methods: In the study, based on the mechanical performances of PEEK and osteogenic potential of Ta, and the three-dimensional (3D) structures of cuttlebone and vertebra, the cages were respectively 3D printed by pure PEEK, PEEK with 5 wt% Ta (PEEK/Ta-5), PEEK with 10 wt% Ta (PEEK/Ta-10) and PEEK with 15 wt% Ta (PEEK/Ta-15), then verified in vitro and in sheep cervical fusion model systematically. Results: Vertebral Gyroid structure PEEK/Ta-15 cage exhibited superior mechanical properties than Cuttlebone-like structure PEEK/Ta-15 cage, closer to the cervical vertebra. Furthermore, PEEK/Ta-15 cage with higher Ta microparticles in PEEK provided a biomimetic gradient porous micro-structure with higher surface energy, guiding cell biological behavior, promoting new bone penetration, and accelerating osseointegration in vivo. Conclusion: In conclusion, the study designed a biomimetic gradient porous cage with a micro-structure for enhancing mechanical properties, accelerating osseointegration and forming an anatomical lock in the fusion segment through composites, mechanical efficiency, surface extension, and pores.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Under the obvious acetabular superolateral bone defect of Crowe II/III hips, this study aimed to investigate the difference in surgical technique of different hip center positions from the surgical data and clinical outcomes. METHODS: From July 2007 to December 2016, 87 patients (106 Crowe II/III hips) consecutively received total hip arthroplasty (THA). The minimum follow-up time was 5 years. The mean limb length discrepancy was 1.97 ± 1.81 cm. Twenty-four hips had surgical histories. The patients were divided into three groups according to the acetabular prosthesis positions, depending on the Crowe classification, respectively, group 1 (Crowe I), group 2 (Crowe II) and group 3 (Crowe III). The surgical data and clinical results were used to evaluate the outcome of different surgical techniques of different hip center positions, including surgical time, blood loss, blood transfusion, number of osteotomy hips, osteotomy length, the distribution of prothesis, postoperative inpatient days, Harris hip scores, Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Back Pain Function Scale (BPFS) and complications. RESULTS: The mean follow-up time was 8.93 ± 2.55 years. Nineteen hips performed intraoperative osteotomy. From group 1 to group 3, the mean osteotomy length were 0.53 ± 1.11 cm, 0.05 ± 0.22 cm, and 0.00 ± 0.00 cm, respectively (p = 0.083); the surgical time were 142.57 ± 57.94 min, 118.4 ± 41.22 min, and 120.00 ± 84.85 min, respectively (p = 0.324); the blood loss were 498.21 ± 368.53 mL, 333.33 ± 167.62 mL, and 350.00 ± 212.13 mL, respectively (p = 0.255); the blood transfusion were 288.48 ± 381.68 mL, 128.00 ± 235.17 mL, and 385.00 ± 219.20 mL, respectively (p = 0.199); the postoperative inpatient days were 7.95 ± 4.42 d, 7.47 ± 4.29 d, and 6.50 ± 0.71 d, respectively (p = 0.831). Among the groups, the distribution of acetabular prosthesis, acetabular liner, acetabular prosthesis sizes, femoral head sizes and femoral prothesis distal sizes were not significantly different (p > 0.05). Only the distribution of femoral prosthesis was significantly different (p = 0.046); the Harris, VAS, BPFS, and the distribution of complications were not significantly different (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: We provided a framework to guide decision-making in Crowe II/III hips for surgeons: the surgical technique of different hip center positions was stable and had good outcomes, but the acetabular prothesis position and femoral prothesis should be determined according to the intraoperative situation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
