Biomechanical Comparison of Cervical Spine Interbody Fusion Cages

Study Design. An in vitro biomechanical study of cervical spine interbody fusion cages using a sheep model was conducted. Objectives. To evaluate the biomechanical effects of cervical spine interbody fusion cages, and to compare three different cage design groups. Summary and Background Data. Recently, there has been a rapid increase in the use of cervical spine interbody fusion cages as an adjunct to spondylodesis. These cages can be classified into three design groups: screw, box, or cylinder designs. Although several comparative biomechanical studies of lumbar interbody fusion cages are available, biomechanical data for cervical spine constructs are lacking. Additionally, only limited data are available concerning comparative evaluation of different cage designs. Methods. In this study, 80 sheep cervical spines (C2–C5) were tested in flexion, extension, axial rotation, and lateral bending with a nondestructive stiffness method using a nonconstrained testing apparatus. Three-dimensional displacement was measured using an optical measurement system (Qualysis). Complete discectomy (C3–C4) was performed. Cervical spine interbody fusion cages were implanted according to manufacturers' information. Eight spines in each of the the following groups were tested: intact, autologous iliac bone graft, two titanium screws (Novus CTTi; Sofamor Danek, Koln, Germany), two titanium screws (BAK-C 8 mm; Sulzer Orthopedics, Baar, Switzerland), one titanium screw (BAK-C 12 mm; Sulzer Orthopedics), carbon box (Novus CSRC; Sofamor Danek), titanium box (Syncage; Synthes, Bochum, Germany), titanium mesh cylinder (Harms; DePuy Acromed, Sulzbach, Germany), titanium cylinder (MSD; Ulrich, Ulm, Germany), and titanium cylinder (Kaden; BiometMerck, Berlin, Germany). The mean apparent stiffness values were calculated from the corresponding load-displacement curves. Additionally, cage volume and volume-related stiffness was determined. Results. After cervical spine interbody fusion cage implantation, flexion stiffness increased, as compared with that of the intact motion segment. On the contrary, rotation stiffness decreased after implantation of a cervical spine interbody fusion cage, except for the Novus CSRC, Syncage, and Kaden-Cage. If two screws were inserted (Novus CTTi and BAK-C 8 mm), there was no significant difference in flexion stiffness between screw and cylinder design groups. If one screw was inserted (BAK-C 12 mm), flexion stiffness was higher for cylinder designs (P < 0.05). Extension and bending stiffness were always higher with cylinder designs (P < 0.05). Volume-related stiffnessfor flexion extension and bending was highest for theHarms cage (P < 0.05). There was no difference for rotation volume-related stiffness between Harms and Syncage. Conclusions. The biomechanical results indicate that design variations in screw and cylinder design groups are of little importance. In this study, however, cages with a cylinder design were able to control extension and bending more effectively than cages with a screw design.