SAS journal最新文献

Background

Vertebral augmentation has recently evolved as a medical procedure for the treatment of vertebral compression fractures, the most common type of skeletal fractures related to osteoporosis.

Methods

This study compared the cement leakage and filling behavior of 2 existing delivery systems (Confidence and Vertebroplastic; DePuy Spine, Raynham, MA). The Confidence system with the high viscosity cement has been recently introduced in an attempt to curtail cement leakage.

Results

The comparison was performed using an established benchmark model wherein the cement leakage, filling behavior can be assessed. A double-conduit introducer needle was used to deliver the cement and to measure the intravertebral pressure while delivering the cement. There were 5 experimental groups in this study: 3 low-viscosity groups, whose cement was injected at 3.5, 6.5, and 9.5 minutes after admixing the powder and monomer, and 2 high-viscosity groups injected at 3.5 and 6.5 minutes. The mass of leaked cement generally decreased with delaying the start of the injection. Specifically, for the low-viscosity, the average smallest leakage mass obtained was 2.6 ± 1.2g when the cement was delivered at 9.5 minutes. If delivered after 3.5 minutes, the mass of cement leak was 4.0 ± 1.2g. The high-viscosity system has showed improved results in curtailing cement leakage, as compared to low-viscosity. Specifically, if injected after 3.5 and 6.5 minutes, the cement leakage amounts were 1.5 ± 1.2g and 0.92 ± 0.6g, respectively. Similarly, the uniformity of cement filling increased when the delivery was delayed and when the high-viscosity system was applied. Furthermore, there were no significance changes in the intravertebral pressures between the low- and high-viscous groups. No correlation between the leakage mass and the IV pressures was noted.

Conclusion

The cement thickness and timing of delivery are key in controlling the intravertebral cement filling and physician may want to explore the use of low- or high-viscous cement for different fractures. The thickness of the cement has no significant impact on the intravertebral pressures.

Background

Biologic-reactivity to implant-debris is the primary determinant of long-term clinical performance. The following reviews: 1) the physical aspects of spinal-implant debris and 2) the local and systemic biologic responses to implant debris.

Methods

Methods included are: 1) gravimetric wear analysis; 2) SEM and LALLS; 3) metal-ion analysis; 4) ELISA, toxicity testing, patch testing; and 5) metal-lymphocyte transformation testing (metal-LTT).

Results

Wear and corrosion of spine-implants produce particles and ions. Particles (0.01–1000 μm) are generally submicron (<1 μm). Wear rates of metal-on-polymer and metal-on-metal disc arthroplasties are approximately 2–20 and 1 mm³/yr, respectively. Metal-on-metal total disc replacement components have significant increases in circulating metal (less than 10-fold that of controls at 4 ppb-Co and 3 ppb-Cr or ng/mL). Debris reactivity is local and systemic. Local inflammation is caused primarily by ingestion of debris by local macrophages, which produce pro-inflammatory cytokines TNFα, IL-1β, IL-6, and PGE2. Systemic responses associated with implant-debris have been limited to hypersensitivity reactions. Elevated amounts of in the liver, spleen, etc of patients with failed TJA have not been associated with remote toxicological or carcinogenic pathology to date. Implant debris are differentially bioreactive. Greater numbers are pro-inflammatory; the smaller-sized debris are more bioreactive by virtue of their greater numbers (dose) for a given amount of implant mass loss (one 100-μm-diameter particle is equivalent in mass to 1 million 1-μm-diameter particles). Elongated particles are pro-inflammatory (ie, aspect ratio of greater than 3). Metal particles are more proinflammatory than polymers, ceteris paribus.

Conclusion

Spinal arthroplasty designs have been in use for more than 20 years internationally; therefore, concerns about neuropathology, toxicity, and carcinogenicity are mitigated. Debris-induced inflammation still depends on the individual and the type of debris. The consequence of debris-induced inflammation is continued; vigilance by physicians is recommended monitoring of spinal implants using physical exams and testing of metal content and bioreactivity, as is planning for the likelihood of revision in younger individuals.

The biological effect of wear of articulating surfaces is a continued concern with large joint replacements and, likewise, of interest for total disc replacements. There are a number of important biotribological testing parameters that can greatly affect the outcome of a wear study in addition to the implant design and material selection. The current ASTM and ISO wear testing standards/guides for spine arthroplasty leave many choices as testing parameters. These factors include but are not limited to the sequence of kinematics and load, phasing, type of lubricant, and specimen preparation (sterilization and artificial aging). The spinal community should critically assess wear studies and be cognizant of the influence of the selected parameters on the test results.

The importance of wear particle characterization for orthopaedic implants has long been established in the hip and knee arthroplasty literature. With the increasing use of motion preservation implants in the spine, the characterization of wear debris, particularly metallic nature, is gaining importance. An accurate morphological analysis of wear particles provides for both a complete characterization of the biocompatibility of the implant material and its wear products, and an in-depth understanding of the wear mechanisms, ion release, and associated corrosive activity related to the wear particles. In this paper, we present an overview of the most commonly-used published protocols for the isolation and characterization of metal wear particles, and highlight the limitations and uncertainties inherent to metal particle analysis.

This article reviews certain practical aspects of retrieval analysis for motion preserving spinal implants and periprosthetic tissues as an essential component of the overall revision strategy for these implants. At our institution, we established an international repository for motion-preserving spine implants in 2004. Our repository is currently open to all spine surgeons, and is intended to be inclusive of all cervical and lumbar implant designs such as artificial discs and posterior dynamic stabilization devices. Although a wide range of alternative materials is being investigated for nonfusion spine implants, many of the examples in this review are drawn from our existing repository of metal-on-polyethylene, metal-on-metal lumbar total disc replacements (TDRs), and polyurethane-based dynamic motion preservation devices. These devices are already approved or nearing approval for use in the United States, and hence are the most clinically relevant at the present time. This article summarizes the current literature on the retrieval analysis of these implants and concludes with recommendations for the development of new test methods that are based on the current state of knowledge of in vivo wear and damage mechanisms. Furthermore, the relevance and need to evaluate the surrounding tissue to obtain a complete understanding of the biological reaction to implant component corrosion and wear is reviewed.

Standards are important tools in evaluating and predicting the performance of medical devices prior to implantation. There are three types of standards that are available: a material specification, a standard test method, and a standard test guide. Each of these types of standards is defined with examples of how each is used to facilitate evaluation of medical devices. The standards development process is also described: this is a complex process, requiring the involvement of a multidisciplinary team, usually consisting of engineers, scientists, and clinicians who represent healthcare, academia, government, and industry. Finally, standards have a clear and defined role in the development of medical devices, and the benefits, strengths, as well as the limitations in this role are discussed.