Pienkowski D, Stephens G C, Doers T M, Hamilton D M
Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Kentucky, Lexington, USA.
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1998 Apr 1;23(7):782-8. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199804010-00008.
This was a prospective in vitro study comparing titanium alloy and stainless steel alloy in transpedicular spine implants from two different manufactures.
To compare the multicycle mechanical performance of these two alloys, used in each of two different implant designs.
Transpedicular spine implants primarily have been manufactured from stainless steel, but titanium alloy offers imaging advantages. However, the notch sensitivity of titanium alloy has caused concern regarding how implants made from this material will compare in stiffness and fatigue life with implants made from stainless steel.
Twenty-four implants (two alloys, two designs, six implants per group) were mounted in machined polyethylene wafers and repetitively loaded (up to 1 million cycles) from 80 N to 800 N using a 5-Hertz sinusoidal waveform. Load and displacement data were automatically and periodically sampled throughout the entire test.
Implant stiffness increased with cycle load number, reached a steady state, then declined just before fatigue failure. Stiffness varied less in titanium transpedicular spine implants than in their stainless counterparts. All stainless steel implant types were stiffer (steady-state value, P < 0.0001) than their titanium alloy counterparts. One titanium implant design failed with fewer (P < 0.05) load cycles than its stainless steel counterpart, whereas a stainless steel implant of another design failed with fewer (P < 0.002) load cycles than its titanium counterpart. Overall, fatigue life, i.e., the total number of load cycles until failure, was related to implant type (P < 0.0001), but not to implant material.
A transpedicular spine implant's fatigue lifetime depends on both the design and the material and cannot be judged on material alone. Stainless steel implants are stiffer than titanium alloy implants of equal design and size; however, for those designs in which the fatigue life of the titanium alloy version is superior, enlargement of the implant's components can compensate for titanium's lower modulus of elasticity and result in an implant equally stiff as its stainless steel counterpart. Such an implant made from titanium alloy would then be clinically preferable because of titanium's previously reported imaging advantages.
这是一项前瞻性体外研究,比较了来自两个不同制造商的经椎弓根脊柱植入物中的钛合金和不锈钢合金。
比较这两种合金在两种不同植入物设计中的多周期机械性能。
经椎弓根脊柱植入物主要由不锈钢制造,但钛合金具有成像优势。然而,钛合金的缺口敏感性引发了人们对这种材料制成的植入物在刚度和疲劳寿命方面与不锈钢制成的植入物相比会如何的担忧。
将24个植入物(两种合金,两种设计,每组6个植入物)安装在加工过的聚乙烯圆片中,并使用5赫兹正弦波形从80牛重复加载至800牛(最多100万次循环)。在整个测试过程中自动定期采集载荷和位移数据。
植入物刚度随循环载荷次数增加,达到稳定状态,然后在疲劳失效前下降。钛制经椎弓根脊柱植入物的刚度变化比不锈钢植入物小。所有不锈钢植入物类型都比其钛合金对应物更硬(稳态值,P < 0.0001)。一种钛植入物设计在比其不锈钢对应物更少(P < 0.05)的载荷循环下失效,而另一种设计的不锈钢植入物在比其钛对应物更少(P < 0.002)的载荷循环下失效。总体而言,疲劳寿命,即直至失效的载荷循环总数,与植入物类型有关(P < 0.0001),但与植入物材料无关。
经椎弓根脊柱植入物的疲劳寿命取决于设计和材料,不能仅根据材料来判断。相同设计和尺寸的不锈钢植入物比钛合金植入物更硬;然而,对于那些钛合金版本疲劳寿命更优的设计,增大植入物部件尺寸可以弥补钛较低的弹性模量,并导致植入物与不锈钢对应物具有相同的刚度。由于钛先前报道的成像优势,这种由钛合金制成的植入物在临床上将更受青睐。