Titanium versus stainless steel for anterior spinal fusions: an analysis of rod stress as a predictor of rod breakage during physiologic loading in a bovine model

• Published in: Spine (Philadelphia, Pa. 1976) Vol. 32; no. 1; p. 42
• Main Authors: Wedemeyer, Michelle, Parent, Stefan, Mahar, Andrew, Odell, Tim, Swimmer, Troy, Newton, Peter
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States 01.01.2007
• Subjects: Animals; Cattle; Materials Testing - methods; Materials Testing - standards; Spinal Fusion - instrumentation; Spinal Fusion - methods; Spinal Fusion - standards; Stainless Steel - standards; Stress, Mechanical; Titanium - standards; Weight-Bearing - physiology
• ISSN: 1528-1159
• DOI: 10.1097/01.brs.0000251036.99413.20

In vitro biomechanical evaluation of rod stress during physiologic loading of anterior scoliosis instrumentation. To determine effects of material properties and rod diameter on rod stresses in anterior scoliosis instrumentation. Relationships between instrumentation dimensions, materials, and potential rod failure in anterior scoliosis instrumentation remain unclear. Eighteen immature bovine spines were randomized to 3 groups: 1) 4.0-mm stainless steel, 2) 5.0-mm stainless steel, and 3) 4.75-mm titanium alloy. Spines underwent physiologic tests in flexion-extension, lateral bending, and torsion. Rod surface strains were converted to rod stress and normalized to each material's yield stress. Construct stiffness and the normalized rod stresses were compared with a one-way ANOVA (P < 0.05). The 4.0-mm steel and 4.75-mm titanium construct stiffness was similar across all tests. The 5.0-mm steel system was significantly stiffer than 4.0-mm steel (lateral bending/torsion) and 4.75-mm titanium (torsion/flexion) constructs. Rod surface stress was significantly lower for the 4.75-mm titanium rod compared with 4.0-mm and 5.0-mm steel rods for all tests. The percentage of yield stress was lowest for the 4.75-mm Ti rod for all tests due to titanium's greater yield stress. This suggests the 4.75-mm rod has a lower fatigue failure risk than either steel construct.