Evaluation of Three Human Cervical Fusion Implants for Use in the Canine Cervical Vertebral Column

Morrison, Emily J.; Litsky, Alan S.; Allen, Matthew J.; Fosgate, Geoffrey T.; Hettlich, Bianca Felicitas (2016). Evaluation of Three Human Cervical Fusion Implants for Use in the Canine Cervical Vertebral Column. Veterinary surgery, 45(7), pp. 901-908. Wiley-Blackwell 10.1111/vsu.12536

[img] Text
vsu12536.pdf - Published Version
Restricted to registered users only
Available under License Publisher holds Copyright.

Download (363kB) | Request a copy

OBJECTIVE: To assess technical feasibility and mechanical properties of 3 locking plate designs (Zero-P, Zero-P VA, and Uniplate 2) for use in the canine cervical spine. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective ex vivo study. ANIMALS: Cadaver cervical spines from skeletally mature large breed dogs (n = 18). METHODS: Specimens were screened using radiography and allocated into balanced groups based on bone density. Stiffness of intact C4-C5 vertebral motion units was measured in extension, flexion, and lateral bending using nondestructive 4-point bend testing. Uniplate 2 was then implanted at C4-C5 and mechanical testing was repeated. Mechanical test data were compared against those from 6 spines implanted with monocortical screws, an allograft ring spacer, and PMMA. RESULTS: The Zero-P and Zero-P VA systems could not be surgically implanted due to anatomical constraints in the vertebral column sizes of the canine cervical spines used in this study. Fixation with Uniplate 2 or with screws/PMMA significantly increased stiffness of the C4-C5 vertebral motion units compared to unaltered specimens (P < .001) in extension. Stiffness of the titanium screw/PMMA fixation was significantly greater than the Uniplate 2 construct in extension. Flexion and lateral bending could not be evaluated in 3 of 6 specimens in the Uniplate 2 group due to failure at the bone/implant interface during extension testing. CONCLUSION: Fixation with Uniplate 2 was biomechanically inferior to screws/PMMA. Particularly concerning was the incidence of vertebral fracture after several testing cycles. Based on our results, Zero-P, Zero-P VA, and Uniplate 2 cannot be recommended for use in dogs requiring cervical fusion.

Item Type:

Journal Article (Original Article)

Division/Institute:

05 Veterinary Medicine > Department of Clinical Veterinary Medicine (DKV)
05 Veterinary Medicine > Department of Clinical Veterinary Medicine (DKV) > Small Animal Clinic > Small Animal Clinic, Surgery
05 Veterinary Medicine > Department of Clinical Veterinary Medicine (DKV) > Small Animal Clinic

UniBE Contributor:

Hettlich, Bianca Felicitas

Subjects:

600 Technology > 610 Medicine & health

ISSN:

0161-3499

Publisher:

Wiley-Blackwell

Language:

English

Submitter:

Bianca Felicitas Hettlich

Date Deposited:

15 Feb 2017 15:08

Last Modified:

17 Feb 2017 18:24

Publisher DOI:

10.1111/vsu.12536

PubMed ID:

27598029

BORIS DOI:

10.7892/boris.92182

URI:

https://boris.unibe.ch/id/eprint/92182

Actions (login required)

Edit item Edit item
Provide Feedback