Fusion is the main goal in the surgical management of the injured and unstable spine. A wide variety of implants is available to enhance this. Our study was performed to evaluate the stabilising characteristics of several anterior, posterior and combined systems of fixation. Six thoracolumbar (T11 to L2) spines from 13-week-old calves were first tested intact. Then the vertebral body of T13 was removed and the defect replaced and supported by a wooden block to simulate bone grafting. Dorsal implants consisting of a Universal Spine System (USS) fracture system and an AO Fixateur interne (AOFI), and ventral implants comprising of a Kaneda Classic, a Kaneda SR, a prototype of the VentroFix single clamp/single rod construct (SC/SR) and the VentroFix single clamp/double rod construct (SC/DR) were first implanted individually to stabilise the removal of the vertebral body. Simulating the combined anteroposterior stabilisations, all ventral implants were combined with the AOFI. The range of motion (ROM) was measured under loads of up to 7.5 Nm. The load was applied in a custom-made spine tester in the three primary directions while measuring the intervertebral movements using a goniometric linkage system. The dorsal systems limited ROM in flexion below 0.9° and in extension between 3.3° and 3.6° (median values). The improved Kaneda System SR yielded a mean ROM of 1.8° in flexion and in extension. The median rotation found with the VentroFix (SC/DR) was 3.2° for flexion and 2.8° for extension. Reinforcement of the ventral constructs with a dorsal system reduced the ROM in flexion and extension in all cases to 0.4° and lower. In rotation, the median ROM of the anterior systems ranged from 2.7° to 5.1° and for the posterior systems from 3.9° to 5.7°, while the combinations provided a ROM of 1.2° to 1.9°. In lateral bending, the posterior implants restricted movement to 1.1°, whereas the anterior implants allowed up to 5.2°. The combined systems provided the highest stability at less than 0.6°. Our study revealed distinct differences between posterior and anterior approaches in all primary directions. Also, different stabilisation characteristics were found within the anterior and posterior groups. Combinations of these two approaches provided the highest stability in all directions

Impacted bone allograft is often used in revision joint replacement. Hydroxyapatite granules have been suggested as a substitute or to enhance morcellised bone allograft. We hypothesised that adding osteogenic protein-1 to a composite of bone allograft and non-resorbable hydroxyapatite granules (ProOsteon) would improve the incorporation of bone and implant fixation. We also compared the response to using ProOsteon alone against bone allograft used in isolation. We implanted two non-weight-bearing hydroxyapatite-coated implants into each proximal humerus of six dogs, with each implant surrounded by a concentric 3 mm gap. These gaps were randomly allocated to four different procedures in each dog: 1) bone allograft used on its own; 2) ProOsteon used on its own; 3) allograft and ProOsteon used together; or 4) allograft and ProOsteon with the addition of osteogenic protein-1.

After three weeks osteogenic protein-1 increased bone formation and the energy absorption of implants grafted with allograft and ProOsteon. A composite of allograft, ProOsteon and osteogenic protein-1 was comparable, but not superior to, allograft used on its own.

ProOsteon alone cannot be recommended as a substitute for allograft around non-cemented implants, but should be used to extend the volume of the graft, preferably with the addition of a growth factor.