Biomechanical evaluation of CIBOR spine interbody fusion device

Alexander C.M. Chong, Seth W. Harrer, Michael H. Heggeness, Paul H. Wooley

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Background: The CIBOR PEEK spinal interbody fusion device is an anterior lumbar interbody fusion construct with a hollow center designed to accommodate an osteoinductive carbon foam insert to promote bony ingrowth to induce fusion where rigid stabilization is needed. Methods: Three different sizes of the device were investigated. Part-I: implants were tested under axial compression and rotation using polyurethane foam blocks. Part-II: simulated 2-legged stance using cadaveric specimen using the L5–S1 lumbar spine segment. Part-III: a survey feedback form was used to investigate two orthopedic surgeons concern regarding the implant. Results: In Part-I, the subsidence hysteresis under axial compression loading was found to be statistical significant difference between these three implant sizes. It was noted that the implants had migration as rotation applied, and the amount of subsidence was a factor of the axial compression loads applied. In Part-II, a minor subsidence and carbon foam debris were observed when compared to each implant size. Poor contact surface of the implant with the end plates of the L5 or S1 vertebrae from the anterior view under maximum loads was observed; however, the implant seemed to be stable. Each surgeon has their own subjective opinion about the CIBOR implant. Discussion: Two out of the three different sizes of the device (medium and large sizes) provided appropriate rigid stabilization at the physiological loads. Neither orthopedic surgeon was 100% satisfied with overall performance of the implant, but felt potential improvement could be made. Clinical Relevance: This study indicates an option for operative treatment of spine interbody fusion, as the CIBOR spine interbody fusion device has a hollow center. This hollow center is designed to accommodate a carbon foam insert to promote bony ingrowth.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1157-1168
Number of pages12
JournalJournal of Biomedical Materials Research - Part B Applied Biomaterials
Volume105
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 2017

Fingerprint

Fusion reactions
Foams
Axial compression
Subsidence
Carbon
Orthopedics
Stabilization
Polyether ether ketones
Debris
Polyurethanes
Hysteresis
Feedback

Keywords

  • anterior fixation
  • biomechanics
  • interbody fusion
  • lumbar
  • polyether-ether-ketone

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Biomaterials
  • Biomedical Engineering

Cite this

Biomechanical evaluation of CIBOR spine interbody fusion device. / Chong, Alexander C.M.; Harrer, Seth W.; Heggeness, Michael H.; Wooley, Paul H.

In: Journal of Biomedical Materials Research - Part B Applied Biomaterials, Vol. 105, No. 5, 07.2017, p. 1157-1168.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Chong, Alexander C.M. ; Harrer, Seth W. ; Heggeness, Michael H. ; Wooley, Paul H. / Biomechanical evaluation of CIBOR spine interbody fusion device. In: Journal of Biomedical Materials Research - Part B Applied Biomaterials. 2017 ; Vol. 105, No. 5. pp. 1157-1168.
@article{56770313ff4f4a5ab1192fe5f572614a,
title = "Biomechanical evaluation of CIBOR spine interbody fusion device",
abstract = "Background: The CIBOR PEEK spinal interbody fusion device is an anterior lumbar interbody fusion construct with a hollow center designed to accommodate an osteoinductive carbon foam insert to promote bony ingrowth to induce fusion where rigid stabilization is needed. Methods: Three different sizes of the device were investigated. Part-I: implants were tested under axial compression and rotation using polyurethane foam blocks. Part-II: simulated 2-legged stance using cadaveric specimen using the L5–S1 lumbar spine segment. Part-III: a survey feedback form was used to investigate two orthopedic surgeons concern regarding the implant. Results: In Part-I, the subsidence hysteresis under axial compression loading was found to be statistical significant difference between these three implant sizes. It was noted that the implants had migration as rotation applied, and the amount of subsidence was a factor of the axial compression loads applied. In Part-II, a minor subsidence and carbon foam debris were observed when compared to each implant size. Poor contact surface of the implant with the end plates of the L5 or S1 vertebrae from the anterior view under maximum loads was observed; however, the implant seemed to be stable. Each surgeon has their own subjective opinion about the CIBOR implant. Discussion: Two out of the three different sizes of the device (medium and large sizes) provided appropriate rigid stabilization at the physiological loads. Neither orthopedic surgeon was 100{\%} satisfied with overall performance of the implant, but felt potential improvement could be made. Clinical Relevance: This study indicates an option for operative treatment of spine interbody fusion, as the CIBOR spine interbody fusion device has a hollow center. This hollow center is designed to accommodate a carbon foam insert to promote bony ingrowth.",
keywords = "anterior fixation, biomechanics, interbody fusion, lumbar, polyether-ether-ketone",
author = "Chong, {Alexander C.M.} and Harrer, {Seth W.} and Heggeness, {Michael H.} and Wooley, {Paul H.}",
year = "2017",
month = "7",
doi = "10.1002/jbm.b.33665",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "105",
pages = "1157--1168",
journal = "Journal of Biomedical Materials Research - Part B Applied Biomaterials",
issn = "1552-4973",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Biomechanical evaluation of CIBOR spine interbody fusion device

AU - Chong, Alexander C.M.

AU - Harrer, Seth W.

AU - Heggeness, Michael H.

AU - Wooley, Paul H.

PY - 2017/7

Y1 - 2017/7

N2 - Background: The CIBOR PEEK spinal interbody fusion device is an anterior lumbar interbody fusion construct with a hollow center designed to accommodate an osteoinductive carbon foam insert to promote bony ingrowth to induce fusion where rigid stabilization is needed. Methods: Three different sizes of the device were investigated. Part-I: implants were tested under axial compression and rotation using polyurethane foam blocks. Part-II: simulated 2-legged stance using cadaveric specimen using the L5–S1 lumbar spine segment. Part-III: a survey feedback form was used to investigate two orthopedic surgeons concern regarding the implant. Results: In Part-I, the subsidence hysteresis under axial compression loading was found to be statistical significant difference between these three implant sizes. It was noted that the implants had migration as rotation applied, and the amount of subsidence was a factor of the axial compression loads applied. In Part-II, a minor subsidence and carbon foam debris were observed when compared to each implant size. Poor contact surface of the implant with the end plates of the L5 or S1 vertebrae from the anterior view under maximum loads was observed; however, the implant seemed to be stable. Each surgeon has their own subjective opinion about the CIBOR implant. Discussion: Two out of the three different sizes of the device (medium and large sizes) provided appropriate rigid stabilization at the physiological loads. Neither orthopedic surgeon was 100% satisfied with overall performance of the implant, but felt potential improvement could be made. Clinical Relevance: This study indicates an option for operative treatment of spine interbody fusion, as the CIBOR spine interbody fusion device has a hollow center. This hollow center is designed to accommodate a carbon foam insert to promote bony ingrowth.

AB - Background: The CIBOR PEEK spinal interbody fusion device is an anterior lumbar interbody fusion construct with a hollow center designed to accommodate an osteoinductive carbon foam insert to promote bony ingrowth to induce fusion where rigid stabilization is needed. Methods: Three different sizes of the device were investigated. Part-I: implants were tested under axial compression and rotation using polyurethane foam blocks. Part-II: simulated 2-legged stance using cadaveric specimen using the L5–S1 lumbar spine segment. Part-III: a survey feedback form was used to investigate two orthopedic surgeons concern regarding the implant. Results: In Part-I, the subsidence hysteresis under axial compression loading was found to be statistical significant difference between these three implant sizes. It was noted that the implants had migration as rotation applied, and the amount of subsidence was a factor of the axial compression loads applied. In Part-II, a minor subsidence and carbon foam debris were observed when compared to each implant size. Poor contact surface of the implant with the end plates of the L5 or S1 vertebrae from the anterior view under maximum loads was observed; however, the implant seemed to be stable. Each surgeon has their own subjective opinion about the CIBOR implant. Discussion: Two out of the three different sizes of the device (medium and large sizes) provided appropriate rigid stabilization at the physiological loads. Neither orthopedic surgeon was 100% satisfied with overall performance of the implant, but felt potential improvement could be made. Clinical Relevance: This study indicates an option for operative treatment of spine interbody fusion, as the CIBOR spine interbody fusion device has a hollow center. This hollow center is designed to accommodate a carbon foam insert to promote bony ingrowth.

KW - anterior fixation

KW - biomechanics

KW - interbody fusion

KW - lumbar

KW - polyether-ether-ketone

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84963647998&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84963647998&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/jbm.b.33665

DO - 10.1002/jbm.b.33665

M3 - Article

C2 - 27029993

AN - SCOPUS:84963647998

VL - 105

SP - 1157

EP - 1168

JO - Journal of Biomedical Materials Research - Part B Applied Biomaterials

JF - Journal of Biomedical Materials Research - Part B Applied Biomaterials

SN - 1552-4973

IS - 5

ER -