title: Assessment of BioPlex interbody fusion device in a sheep lumbar fusion model.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  The purpose of this study was to evaluate the bioPlex bioresorbable interbody device in a sheep lumbar fusion model and compare it to the concorde, a standard carbon fiber interbody cage.
  
  
  BACKGROUND
  Lumbar interbody fusion devices are made from a variety of materials, including titanium alloys, carbon-fiber, and PEEK. The BioPlex Continuous Phase Composite (CPC) is a unique bioresorbable material comprised of Pro Osteon 500R and 70:30 Poly (L/D, L-lactic acid). The BioPlex device is radiolucent, resorbable and due to its bulk nanoporosity of 8%, has a more consistent degradation profile as compared to a polymer alone.
  
  
  METHODS
  A total of twenty five male Suffolk sheep were used in this study; nineteen of which were implanted with a bioPlex or concorde device at the L3-L4 and L5-L6 levels using a modified transforaminal/lateral approach. A discectomy was performed and each implant (filled with autologous bone) was placed within the disc space. The sheep were sacrificed at 6, 12, 24 months postimplantation. Fusion was assessed via motion, radiographic and histological data.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The BioPlex and Concorde implanted levels had significantly less motion (p<0.05) than the normal controls in flexion/extension and lateral bending at 6, 12, and 24 months. No significant difference in motion was detected between the bioPlex and concorde implants. CT fusion scores correlated with the motion analysis in all the three cases.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  In comparison to the concorde device, the bioPlex implant appears to have equivalent radiographic and biomechanical fusion success.
authors.affiliation: Department of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, The University of Iowa , Iowa City, IA , United States.
authors.forename: Douglas C
authors.initials: DC
authors.lastname: Fredericks
authors.forename: Anup A
authors.initials: AA
authors.lastname: Gandhi
authors.forename: Nicole M
authors.initials: NM
authors.lastname: Grosland
authors.forename: Joseph D
authors.initials: JD
authors.lastname: Smucker
mesh_terms: D000818:Animals; D017586:Diskectomy / Q000295:instrumentation*; D008159:Lumbar Vertebrae / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging / Q000601:surgery*; D008297:Male; D023421:Models, Animal; D019736:Prostheses and Implants; D011859:Radiography; D016059:Range of Motion, Articular / Q000502:physiology*; D012756:Sheep; D013123:Spinal Fusion / Q000295:instrumentation*; D016896:Treatment Outcome
keywords: arthrodesis; bioresorbable; interbody fusion; lumbar spine; sheep model
references.citation: Orthop Clin North Am. 2005 Jul;36(3):263-9
references.pmid: 15950686
references.citation: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2005 Sep;26(8):2057-66
references.pmid: 16155160
references.citation: Eur Spine J. 2006 Feb;15(2):133-48
references.pmid: 16292588
references.citation: J Neurosurg. 2000 Oct;93(2 Suppl):259-65
references.pmid: 11012057
references.citation: Orthopedics. 1988 Jun;11(6):931-4
references.pmid: 3387340
references.citation: Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1985 Mar;(193):38-46
references.pmid: 3882295
references.citation: J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004 Jan;86(1):70-9
references.pmid: 14711948
references.citation: Eur Spine J. 2000 Feb;9 Suppl 1:S95-101
references.pmid: 10766064
references.citation: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1999 Jun 1;24(11):1058-65
references.pmid: 10361653
references.citation: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1998 Jun 1;23(11):1267-78; discussion 1279
references.pmid: 9636981
references.citation: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1998 Aug 15;23(16):1804-6
references.pmid: 9728382
references.citation: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1997 Jan 1;22(1):26-31
references.pmid: 9122778
references.citation: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1991 Jun;16(6 Suppl):S277-82
references.pmid: 1862425