Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
4.8
3.4
Journals
Prosthesis
Special Issues
Spine Implants – Materials and Mechanics
share announcement

Spine Implants – Materials and Mechanics

A special issue of Prosthesis (ISSN 2673-1592).

Deadline for manuscript submissions: 20 December 2024 | Viewed by 2898

Special Issue Editor

Dr. André P. G. Castro

E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
1. IDMEC, Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa, 1049-001 Lisbon, Portugal
2. ESTSetúbal, Instituto Politécnico de Setúbal, 2914-761 Setúbal, Portugal
Interests: biomechanics; biomedical engineering; tissue engineering
Special Issues, Collections and Topics in MDPI journals

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues,

Spine diseases related to the degeneration of bone and soft tissues are a serious source of disability worldwide as they affect a large portion of the population. This results in high care costs for therapy and treatment, especially in Western societies. As such, spine diseases are among the major reasons for work absenteeism and decreases in productivity. The high frequency of these conditions can be explained by the ageing of the population and the prominence of sedentary lifestyles. Intervertebral disc degeneration or ligament hypertrophy, which in the most severe cases can greatly impact people’s quality of life, are among the known risk factors.

This Special Issue deals with the research on implants targeting spine diseases, from intervertebral fusion strategies to disc arthroplasty. This Special Issue is dedicated to the research on the mechanics of these implants and the application of innovative materials/solutions, including in vitro, ex vivo, in silico, and in vivo studies.

Topics of interest for this Special Issue include, but are not limited to, the following: lumbar fusion cages, cervical fusion cages, spinal fixation systems, artificial discs, finite-element modelling of the spine (native vs. degenerated vs. implanted spine), dynamic modelling of the spine (movement with implant vs. movement without implant), and follow-up studies on implanted spines.

Dr. André P. G. Castro
Guest Editor

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a single-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Prosthesis is an international peer-reviewed open access semimonthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 1600 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

Keywords

  • spine
  • intervertebral disc
  • vertebrae
  • lumbar fusion
  • cervical fusion
  • disc arthroplasty
  • spinal fixation

Published Papers (2 papers)

Download All Papers
Order results
Result details
Show export options expand_more Show export options expand_less
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:

Research

13 pages, 3391 KiB  
Article
Numerical Assessment of Interspinous Spacers for Lumbar Spine
by Marcial Francisco Hernández-Ortega, Christopher René Torres-SanMiguel, Elliot Alonso Alcántara-Arreola, Juan Carlos Paredes-Rojas, Ohtokani Cabrera-Rodríguez and Guillermo Manuel Urriolagoitia-Calderón
Prosthesis 2023, 5(3), 939-951; https://doi.org/10.3390/prosthesis5030065 - 12 Sep 2023
Cited by 2 | Viewed by 1215
Abstract
Interspinous spacers are a minimally invasive surgical device for treating degenerative lumbar diseases, limiting spinal extension, and decreasing pressures within the disc and facets, relieving symptoms caused by lumbar spinal stenosis. This work uses the finite element method to calculate the stresses and [...] Read more.
Interspinous spacers are a minimally invasive surgical device for treating degenerative lumbar diseases, limiting spinal extension, and decreasing pressures within the disc and facets, relieving symptoms caused by lumbar spinal stenosis. This work uses the finite element method to calculate the stresses and deformations of an interspinous spacer with steel wire clamping. The cables also provide an easier way to set up the device. The reconstruction of the model was undertaken by computerized tomography, considering a person with average Mexican height (1.64 m) and a mass index grade of 2 (108 kg). The maximum movements reported in the literature were used for the range of motion. The interspinous spacer increases in a ratio of 2.7 times the stresses. Still, these stresses are generated in the prosthesis, which causes the vertebrae to be relieved since the forces and pressures are reduced. Deformations decrease by 53% with the reduction of the range of motion. Therefore, the prosthesis provides excellent stability for the vertebrae. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Spine Implants – Materials and Mechanics)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

11 pages, 1618 KiB  
Article
The Effects of Interbody Device Design and Placement on Lumbar Lordosis and Disc Height in Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion
by Ian J. Wellington, Caroline R. Kaufman, Christopher L. Antonacci, Ergin Coskun, Mark P. Cote, Hardeep Singh, Scott S. Mallozzi and Isaac L. Moss
Prosthesis 2023, 5(3), 752-762; https://doi.org/10.3390/prosthesis5030053 - 10 Aug 2023
Cited by 9 | Viewed by 1134
Abstract
There are a wide variety of interbody devices available for use in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). While traditionally these interbodies are bullet-shaped, crescent-shaped cages have become increasingly common. There is a paucity of literature comparing the effect of cage geometry with substratification [...] Read more.
There are a wide variety of interbody devices available for use in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). While traditionally these interbodies are bullet-shaped, crescent-shaped cages have become increasingly common. There is a paucity of literature comparing the effect of cage geometry with substratification for surgical approach (minimally invasive (MIS) vs. open). The aim of this study was to determine the effect of implant geometry, positioning, and surgical approach on the correction of different spinal alignment parameters in patients undergoing TLIF. A retrospective chart and imaging review was performed on 103 patients with a total of 131 instrumented segments performed by a single surgeon. Preoperative, initial postoperative, and final postoperative standing lateral lumbar radiographs were evaluated for lumbar lordosis (LL), segmental lordosis (SL), anterior disc height (ADH), and posterior disc height (PDH). Anterior-posterior implant positioning was recorded for initial and final postoperative radiographs. These measurements were compared among four groups: open bullet (OB), MIS bullet (MB), open crescent (OC), and MIS crescent (MC). SL increased in all groups by a mean of 2.9° at initial imaging and 2.2° at final imaging. The OC group had greater initial improvement in SL compared to the MB group (p = 0.02), though this effect was lost at final follow-up (p = 0.11). The OB and OC groups conferred greater initial improvement in ADH (p = 0.02; p = 0.04), while the OC group had greater final improvement in ADH compared to the MB and MC groups (p = 0.01; p = 0.01). The OC group had less initial improvement in PDH compared with the other groups (p = 0.03, p = 0.02, p < 0.01). The MB group provided greater final improvement in PDH compared with the MC and OC groups (p = 0.04, p = 0.01). Cage geometry, surgical approach, and implant position all demonstrated a statistically significant but clinically minor impact on segmental alignment for TLIF procedures. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Spine Implants – Materials and Mechanics)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

Show export options expand_more Show export options expand_less
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
 
Displaying articles 1-2
Back to TopTop