Display options
Cite
Ferrara LA, Gordon I, Schlenk R, et al. In Vivo Assessment of Bone Graft/Endplate Contact Pressure in a Caprine Interbody Pseudarthrosis Model: A Preliminary Biomechanical Characterization of the Fusion Process for the Development of a Microelectromechanical Systems (MEMS) Biosensor. SAS J. 2008;2(1):1-8doi: 10.1016/SASJ-2007-0102-RR.
Ferrara, L. A., Gordon, I., Schlenk, R., Coquillette, M., Fleischman, A. J., Roy, S., Togawa, D., Bauer, T. W., & Benzel, E. C. (2008). In Vivo Assessment of Bone Graft/Endplate Contact Pressure in a Caprine Interbody Pseudarthrosis Model: A Preliminary Biomechanical Characterization of the Fusion Process for the Development of a Microelectromechanical Systems (MEMS) Biosensor. SAS journal, 2(1), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/SASJ-2007-0102-RR
Ferrara, Lisa A, et al. "In Vivo Assessment of Bone Graft/Endplate Contact Pressure in a Caprine Interbody Pseudarthrosis Model: A Preliminary Biomechanical Characterization of the Fusion Process for the Development of a Microelectromechanical Systems (MEMS) Biosensor." SAS journal vol. 2,1 (2008): 1-8. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/SASJ-2007-0102-RR
Ferrara LA, Gordon I, Schlenk R, Coquillette M, Fleischman AJ, Roy S, Togawa D, Bauer TW, Benzel EC. In Vivo Assessment of Bone Graft/Endplate Contact Pressure in a Caprine Interbody Pseudarthrosis Model: A Preliminary Biomechanical Characterization of the Fusion Process for the Development of a Microelectromechanical Systems (MEMS) Biosensor. SAS J. 2008 Mar 01;2(1):1-8. doi: 10.1016/SASJ-2007-0102-RR. eCollection 2008. PMID: 25802595; PMCID: PMC4365651.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

SAS J. 2008 Mar 01;2(1):1-8. doi: 10.1016/SASJ-2007-0102-RR. eCollection 2008.

In Vivo Assessment of Bone Graft/Endplate Contact Pressure in a Caprine Interbody Pseudarthrosis Model: A Preliminary Biomechanical Characterization of the Fusion Process for the Development of a Microelectromechanical Systems (MEMS) Biosensor.

SAS journal

Lisa A Ferrara, Ilya Gordon, Richard Schlenk, Madeline Coquillette, Aaron J Fleischman, Shuvo Roy, Daisuke Togawa, Thomas W Bauer, Edward C Benzel

Affiliations

  1. OrthoKinetic Techologies, LLC.
  2. The Cleveland Clinic Foundation.

PMID: 25802595 PMCID: PMC4365651 DOI: 10.1016/SASJ-2007-0102-RR

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In this preliminary study we used a goat model to quantify pressure at an interbody bone graft interface. Although the study was designed to assess fusion status, the concept behind the technology could lead to early detection of implant failure and potential hazardous complications related to motion-preservation devices. The purpose of this study was to investigate the feasibility of in vivo pressure monitoring as a strategy to determine fusion status.

METHODS: Telemetric pressure transducers were implanted, and pressure at the bone graft interfaces of cervical interbody fusion autografts placed into living goats (Groups A and B) was evaluated. Group A constituted the 4-month survival group and Group B the 6-month survival group. One goat served as the study control (Group C) and was not implanted with a pressure transducer. An additional six cadaveric goat cervical spines (Group D) were obtained from a local slaughterhouse and implanted with bone grafts and ventral plates and used for in vitro biomechanical comparison to the specimens from Groups A and B.

RESULTS: All goats demonstrated an increase in interface pressure within the first 10 days postoperatively, with the largest relative change in pressure occurring between the sixth and ninth days. The goats from Groups A and B had a 200% to 400% increase in relative pressure.

CONCLUSIONS: Although this was a pilot study to assess pressure as an indicator for a fusion or pseudarthrosis, the preliminary data suggest that early bone healing is detectable by an increase in pressure. Thus, pressure may serve as an indicator of fusion status by detecting altered biomechanical parameters.

Keywords: Pseudarthrosis; biomechanics; cervical spine; goat; pressure; telemetric; vertebral endplate

References

  1. Phys Med Biol. 2000 Feb;45(2):329-47 - PubMed
  2. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1992 Oct;17(10 Suppl):S418-26 - PubMed
  3. J Neurosurg. 2002 Nov;97(4 Suppl):433-9 - PubMed
  4. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1984 Sep;9(6):557-65 - PubMed
  5. Spine J. 2004 Nov-Dec;4(6):614-8 - PubMed
  6. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1997 Oct 15;22(20):2365-74 - PubMed
  7. Can J Vet Res. 1994 Apr;58(2):156 - PubMed
  8. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1981 Mar-Apr;6(2):159-61 - PubMed
  9. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2000 Jan;47(1):12-6 - PubMed
  10. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004 Mar 15;29(6):601-6 - PubMed
  11. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1993 Jul;18(9):1186-9 - PubMed
  12. J Neurosurg. 2002 Sep;97(2 Suppl):186-92 - PubMed
  13. J Neurosurg. 2001 Jan;94(1 Suppl):180 - PubMed
  14. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1999 Jun 15;24(12):1192-5; discussion 1195-6 - PubMed
  15. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1998 Nov 15;23(22):2450-4 - PubMed
  16. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1998 Apr 1;23 (7):758-65; discussion 766 - PubMed
  17. Med Eng Phys. 1996 Sep;18(6):485-8 - PubMed
  18. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1993 Oct 15;18(14 ):1974-83 - PubMed
  19. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1966 Mar-Apr;45:107-22 - PubMed
  20. Clin Neurosurg. 2002;49:209-25 - PubMed
  21. Neurosurgery. 2001 Oct;49(4):779-97; discussion 797-8 - PubMed
  22. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1991 Jun;16(6 Suppl):S261-5 - PubMed
  23. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004 Jun 15;29(12):1320-4 - PubMed
  24. Neurosurgery. 1999 Feb;44(2):379-84; discussion 384-5 - PubMed
  25. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000 Apr 1;25(7):783-95 - PubMed

Publication Types