Restoration of Spinal Alignment and Disk Mechanics following Polyetheretherketone Wafer Kyphoplasty with StaXx FX

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:EPFs sustained during VCFs degrade the disk's ability to develop IDP under load. This inability to develop pressure in combination with residual kyphotic deformity increases the risk for adjacent vertebral fractures. We tested the hypothesis that StaXx FX reduces kyphosis and endplate deformity following vertebral compression fracture, restoring disk mechanics.

Treatment of an osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture with the StaXx FX system resulting in intrathoracic wafers: a serious complication

“…These include lordoplasty [14], vesselplasty [15], vertebral body stenting [16], mesh-allograft-stenting [17], among others [18], as well as the StaXx FX system. In experimentally created VCFs, partial endplate reduction and kyphosis correction could be achieved with the StaXx FX system, with intervertebral disk pressure corrected to 86% of normal [9]. In addition, in 26 VCFs treated with the device, a significant decrease in visual analogue scale (VAS) pain score was observed after 8 months of follow-up [19].…”

“…An alternative KP procedure uses sequentially inserted 1-mm thick polyetheretherketone (PEEK) wafers for controlled and vertically oriented kyphosis correction (StaXx FX system, Spine Wave, Inc, Shelton, USA). The theoretical advantages over other VP and KP procedures are retained fracture reduction, less cement leakage and restoration of the load-bearing properties of the intervertebral disc [9]. …”

Biomechanical Comparison of Robotically Applied Pure Moment, Ideal Follower Load, and Novel Trunk Weight Loading Protocols on L4-L5 Cadaveric Segments during Flexion-Extension

“…A common FL magnitude of 400N was chosen for simulation. [33][34][35] Linear Y-axis, and lateral and axial rotation axes were controlled to 0N and 0Nm, respectively.…”

The Development and Application of a Custom Robotic Biomechanical Testing Platform Employing Real-time Load-control to Compare Spinal Biomechanical Testing Protocols: Pure Moment, Ideal Follower Load, and a Novel Trunk Weight Protocol

“…9 Therefore, at 0.2° increments of sagittal rotation, AP and CC forces were commanded by Equation 3.1 and 3.2 where B is the angle of the top body and β is the angle between the mid-plane of the disc and the top pot. A load magnitude of 400N was chosen for simulation 48,49,50 while the Y-axis, lateral and axial rotation axes targeted 0 N and 0 Nm, respectively. All of these forces were read and consequently applied at the point of the FRF transform determined for each specimen upon mounting.…”

“…A load magnitude of 400N was chosen for simulation. 48,49,50 At 0.2° increment of sagittal rotation commanded FMS forces were thus programmed using Equations 3.1 and 3.2:…”