Subsidence Performance of the Bioactive Glass-Ceramic (CaO-SiO2-P2O5-B2O3) Spacer in Terms of Modulus of Elasticity and Contact Area: Mechanical Test and Finite Element Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to evaluate the subsidence performance of a bioactive glass-ceramic (CaO-SiO2-P2O5-B2O3) spacer in terms of its modulus of elasticity and contact area using mechanical tests and finite element analysis. METHODS: Three spacer three-dimensional models (Polyether ether ketone [PEEK]-C: PEEK spacer with a small contact area; PEEK-NF: PEEK spacer with a large contact area; and Bioactive glass [BGS]-NF: bioactive glass-ceramic spacer with a large contact area) are constructed and placed between bone blocks for compression analysis. The stress distribution, peak von Mises stress, and reaction force generated in the bone block are predicted by applying a compressive load. Subsidence tests are conducted for three spacer models in accordance with ASTM F2267. Three types of blocks measuring 8, 10, and 15 pounds per cubic foot are used to account for the various bone qualities of patients. A statistical analysis of the results is conducted using a one-way Analysis of variance and post hoc analysis (Tukey's Honestly Significant Difference) by measuring the stiffness and yield load. RESULTS: The stress distribution, peak von Mises stress, and reaction force predicted via the finite element analysis are the highest for PEEK-C, whereas they are similar for PEEK-NF and BGS-NF. Results of mechanical tests show that the stiffness and yield load of PEEK-C are the lowest, whereas those of PEEK-NF and BGS-NF are similar. CONCLUSIONS: The main factor affecting subsidence performance is the contact area. Therefore, bioactive glass-ceramic spacers exhibit a larger contact area and better subsidence performance than conventional spacers.

Tissue-Sparing Posterior Cervical Fusion With Interfacet Cages: A Systematic Review of the Literature.

STUDY DESIGN: Literature review. OBJECTIVES: Posterior cervical interfacet cages are an alternative to lateral mass fixation in patients undergoing cervical spine surgery. Recently, a percutaneous, tissue-sparing system for interfacet cage placement has been developed, however, there is limited clinical evidence supporting its widespread use. The aim was to review studies published on this system for patient reported outcomes, radiographic outcomes, intraoperative outcomes, and complications. METHODS: Four electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and MEDLINE) were queried for original published studies that evaluated the percutaneous, tissue-sparing technique for posterior cervical fusion with interfacet cage placement. All studies reporting on open techniques and purely biomechanical studies were excluded. RESULTS: The extensive literature search returned 7852 studies. After systematic review, a total of 7 studies met inclusion criteria. Studies were independently classified as retrospective or prospective cohort studies and each assessed by the GRADE criteria. Patient reported outcomes, radiographic outcomes, intraoperative outcomes, and complications were extracted from each study and presented. CONCLUSIONS: Tissue-sparing, posterior cervical fusion with interfacet cages may be considered a safe and effective surgical intervention in patients failing conservative management for cervical spondylotic disease. However, the quality of evidence in the literature is lacking, and controlled, comparative studies are needed for definitive assessment.