4.5 Article

Improved bone-screw interface with hydroxyapatite coating -: An in vivo study of loaded pedicle screws in sheep

期刊

SPINE
卷 26, 期 24, 页码 2673-2678

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/00007632-200112150-00008

关键词

hydroxyapatite; pedicle screw; histomorphometry; interface; bone response

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Study Design. An in vivo sheep model with loaded pedicle screws was used, wherein each animal served as its own control. Objectives. To examine the effects of hydroxyapatite (HA coating on the bone-to-implant interface in loaded spinal instrumentations. Summary of Background Data. Spinal instrumentation improves the healing rate in spinal fusion, but screw loosening constitutes a problem, HA coating of other implants has resulted in favorable effects on the bone-to-implant interface. Methods. Nine sheep were operated on with destabilizing laminectomies at two levels: L2-L3 and L4-L5. Each level was stabilized separately with a four-screw instrumentation. Uncoated screws (stainless steel) or the same type of screws coated with plasma-sprayed HA were used in either the upper or the lower instrumentation in a randomized fashion, The animals were killed at 6 or 12 weeks after surgery. The specimens were embedded in resin, ground to approximately 10 mum, and stained with toluldine blue. Histomorphometric evaluation was carried out in a Leitz Aristoplan (Wetzlar, Germany) light microscope equipped with a Leitz Microvid unit. Results. The average percentage of bone-to-implant contact after 6 weeks was 69 10 for the HA-coated screws and 18 +/- 11 for the uncoated screws (P < 0.03), and after 12 weeks 64 +/- 31 (HA-coated) and 9 +/- 13 (uncoated, P < 0.02). The average bone volume in the area close to the screw was significantly higher for the HA-coated screws at both 6 and 12 weeks. Conclusions. HA coating improved the bone-to-implant interface significantly, indicating that HA coating can become useful for improving the purchase of pedicle screws.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据