无窗三维打印多孔钛笼在后路腰椎椎体间融合术中的可行性:一项试点试验。

IF 1.9 2区 医学 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery Pub Date : 2023-12-01 Epub Date: 2023-09-01 DOI:10.4055/cios22404
Dae-Woong Ham, Chan-Woo Jung, Dong-Gune Chang, Jae Jun Yang, Kwang-Sup Song
{"title":"无窗三维打印多孔钛笼在后路腰椎椎体间融合术中的可行性:一项试点试验。","authors":"Dae-Woong Ham, Chan-Woo Jung, Dong-Gune Chang, Jae Jun Yang, Kwang-Sup Song","doi":"10.4055/cios22404","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The commercially available design of a three-dimensional (3D)-printed titanium (3D-Ti) cage can be divided into two types according to the presence of a window: a cage with a window that allows filling of bone graft materials and a non-window cage for stand-alone use. This prospective observational case series study aimed to explore the clinical feasibility of using a non-window type 3D-Ti cage in cases of combined window and non-window cage implantation. Furthermore, we evaluated the bone in growth patterns of non-window cages and their correlation with published fusion grading systems.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 31 consecutive patients who underwent single-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion surgery were included. Two 3D-Ti cages with different designs were inserted: a non-window cage on the left side and a window cage on the right side. Radiographic fusion was defined by the segmental angle between flexion and extension radiographs (F-E angle) and cage bridging bone (CBB) scores on computed tomography. The association between the F-E angle and osteointegration scoring system including the surface osteointegration ratio (SOR) score was analyzed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Radiographic fusion was achieved in 27 of 31 patients (87%) at 12 months postoperatively. Among the non-window cages, 23 of 31 (74.2%) had fair SOR scores, while 19 of 31 (61.3%) window cages had fair intra-cage CBB scores. The higher the SOR score was, the smaller the flexion-extension angle (SOR 0 vs. SOR 1: 6.30° ± 2.43° vs. 1.95° ± 0.99°, <i>p</i> < 0.001; SOR 0 vs. SOR 2: 6.03° ± 2.43° vs. 0.99°± 0.74°, <i>p</i> < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The clinical feasibility of using a non-window 3D-Ti cage during lumbar interbody fusion might be acceptable. Furthermore, a newly suggested fusion criterion for the use of the non-window cage, the SOR score, showed a significant association with the published fusion grading systems, demonstrating its feasibility in determining interbody fusion in lumbar spinal surgery.</p>","PeriodicalId":47648,"journal":{"name":"Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10689219/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Feasibility of Non-window Three-Dimensional-Printed Porous Titanium Cage in Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Pilot Trial.\",\"authors\":\"Dae-Woong Ham, Chan-Woo Jung, Dong-Gune Chang, Jae Jun Yang, Kwang-Sup Song\",\"doi\":\"10.4055/cios22404\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The commercially available design of a three-dimensional (3D)-printed titanium (3D-Ti) cage can be divided into two types according to the presence of a window: a cage with a window that allows filling of bone graft materials and a non-window cage for stand-alone use. This prospective observational case series study aimed to explore the clinical feasibility of using a non-window type 3D-Ti cage in cases of combined window and non-window cage implantation. Furthermore, we evaluated the bone in growth patterns of non-window cages and their correlation with published fusion grading systems.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 31 consecutive patients who underwent single-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion surgery were included. Two 3D-Ti cages with different designs were inserted: a non-window cage on the left side and a window cage on the right side. Radiographic fusion was defined by the segmental angle between flexion and extension radiographs (F-E angle) and cage bridging bone (CBB) scores on computed tomography. The association between the F-E angle and osteointegration scoring system including the surface osteointegration ratio (SOR) score was analyzed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Radiographic fusion was achieved in 27 of 31 patients (87%) at 12 months postoperatively. Among the non-window cages, 23 of 31 (74.2%) had fair SOR scores, while 19 of 31 (61.3%) window cages had fair intra-cage CBB scores. The higher the SOR score was, the smaller the flexion-extension angle (SOR 0 vs. SOR 1: 6.30° ± 2.43° vs. 1.95° ± 0.99°, <i>p</i> < 0.001; SOR 0 vs. SOR 2: 6.03° ± 2.43° vs. 0.99°± 0.74°, <i>p</i> < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The clinical feasibility of using a non-window 3D-Ti cage during lumbar interbody fusion might be acceptable. Furthermore, a newly suggested fusion criterion for the use of the non-window cage, the SOR score, showed a significant association with the published fusion grading systems, demonstrating its feasibility in determining interbody fusion in lumbar spinal surgery.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47648,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10689219/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4055/cios22404\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/9/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4055/cios22404","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/9/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

商业上可用的三维(3D)打印钛(3D- ti)笼的设计可以根据有无窗口分为两种类型:一种是带窗口的笼,允许填充骨移植材料,另一种是无窗口的笼,用于独立使用。本前瞻性观察性病例系列研究旨在探讨非窗型3D-Ti笼在窗与非窗联合植入病例中的临床可行性。此外,我们评估了非窗笼骨的生长模式及其与已发表的融合分级系统的相关性。方法:共纳入31例连续行单节段后路腰椎椎体间融合手术的患者。植入两个不同设计的3D-Ti笼:左侧为非窗笼,右侧为窗笼。放射融合是通过屈伸片之间的节段角(F-E角)和计算机断层扫描上的笼桥骨(CBB)评分来定义的。分析F-E角与骨整合评分系统包括表面骨整合率(SOR)评分之间的关系。结果:31例患者中有27例(87%)在术后12个月实现了影像学融合。在非窗笼中,31个笼中有23个(74.2%)的SOR评分公平,而31个窗笼中有19个(61.3%)的CBB评分公平。SOR评分越高,屈伸角越小(SOR 0比SOR 1: 6.30°±2.43°比1.95°±0.99°,p < 0.001;琼0和SOR 2: 6.03°±2.43°和0.99°±0.74°,p < 0.001)。结论:在腰椎椎体间融合术中使用非窗口3D-Ti笼的临床可行性是可以接受的。此外,一项新提出的使用非窗笼的融合标准SOR评分与已发表的融合评分系统有显著相关性,表明其在腰椎手术中确定椎间融合的可行性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Feasibility of Non-window Three-Dimensional-Printed Porous Titanium Cage in Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Pilot Trial.

Background: The commercially available design of a three-dimensional (3D)-printed titanium (3D-Ti) cage can be divided into two types according to the presence of a window: a cage with a window that allows filling of bone graft materials and a non-window cage for stand-alone use. This prospective observational case series study aimed to explore the clinical feasibility of using a non-window type 3D-Ti cage in cases of combined window and non-window cage implantation. Furthermore, we evaluated the bone in growth patterns of non-window cages and their correlation with published fusion grading systems.

Methods: A total of 31 consecutive patients who underwent single-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion surgery were included. Two 3D-Ti cages with different designs were inserted: a non-window cage on the left side and a window cage on the right side. Radiographic fusion was defined by the segmental angle between flexion and extension radiographs (F-E angle) and cage bridging bone (CBB) scores on computed tomography. The association between the F-E angle and osteointegration scoring system including the surface osteointegration ratio (SOR) score was analyzed.

Results: Radiographic fusion was achieved in 27 of 31 patients (87%) at 12 months postoperatively. Among the non-window cages, 23 of 31 (74.2%) had fair SOR scores, while 19 of 31 (61.3%) window cages had fair intra-cage CBB scores. The higher the SOR score was, the smaller the flexion-extension angle (SOR 0 vs. SOR 1: 6.30° ± 2.43° vs. 1.95° ± 0.99°, p < 0.001; SOR 0 vs. SOR 2: 6.03° ± 2.43° vs. 0.99°± 0.74°, p < 0.001).

Conclusions: The clinical feasibility of using a non-window 3D-Ti cage during lumbar interbody fusion might be acceptable. Furthermore, a newly suggested fusion criterion for the use of the non-window cage, the SOR score, showed a significant association with the published fusion grading systems, demonstrating its feasibility in determining interbody fusion in lumbar spinal surgery.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
4.00%
发文量
85
审稿时长
36 weeks
期刊最新文献
Atraumatic Sport-Related Medial Sesamoid Pain: Conservative Treatment Outcome and Magnetic Resonance Imaging Features. Cemented Versus Uncemented Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty Treatment of Proximal Humerus Fractures: National Shoulder Arthroplasty Data from Türkiye. Comparison of Midterm Outcomes between All-Inside Arthroscopic and Open Modified Broström Procedures as Treatment for Chronic Ankle Instability. Does the Nonunion Rate of Atypical Femoral Fractures Differ According to Fracture Site?: A Meta-Analysis. Isolated Polyethylene Insert Exchange for Instability after Total Knee Arthroplasty: Comparable Survival Rates and Range of Motion and Improved Clinical Scores Regardless of Hyperextension.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1