Trabecular Metal™ Technology
The Best Thing Next To Bone™
Trabecular Metal Material provides spine surgeons an
alternative to
allo-/autograft and other synthetic materials.
This innovative solution offers:
- High volume porosity (70 - 80%) capable of supporting tissue ingrowth.
- Physical and mechanical properties similar to those of bone.
- High coefficient of friction that can aid in initial device stability.
- Low antigenicity to reduce risk of immune response.
- Availability in shapes and sizes appropriate for spinal applications.
Go here for information about Trabecular Metal Material spine products.
What is the primary reason for this structural biomaterial's performance? A
cellular structure that approximates the physical and mechanical properties
of natural bone more closely than any other prosthetic material, (1,10,11).
Highly porous, it is uniquely conducive to bone formation, enabling both
strong attachment and fast, extensive tissue infiltration.(1)
Apposition and Rapid Ingrowth
Trabecular Metal Implants are fabricated of elemental tantalum metal
using a vapor deposition technique to create a metallic strut configuration
that is similar to trabecular bone. The resulting crystalline nano-texture
permits direct bone apposition.(2,3,4)
With void space averaging 70 - 80%, the porosity of Trabecular Metal Implants is significantly higher than the 8% found in natural cortical bone. This means more pathways for unimpeded bone ingrowth as well as the potential for greater mechanical strength across interfaces,(5,6).
.
.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Trabecular Metal Material is exceptionally porous. That can mean early fixation. |
At three months, bone is directly apposed to a Trabecular Metal Implant. |
With a metallic strut configuration similar to that of trabecular bone, the crystalline nano-texture permits direct apposition of bone. |
|
4 Weeks |
8 Weeks |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trabecular Metal Material is exceptionally porous. That can mean early fixation. At three months, bone is directly apposed to a Trabecular Metal Implant. With a metallic strut configuration similar to that of trabecular bone, the crystalline nano-texture permits direct apposition of bone.
These histologic micrographs show that new-bone filling of prepared canine cortical holes is comparable with Trabecular Metal Implants (top) and without (bottom).
Strong and Flexible
The mechanical properties of Trabecular Metal Implants are better matched to cancellous bone than virtually any other material, (3,8).
For example, its elastic modulus is a fraction of carbon fibre’s and allograft cortical bone. As a result, it facilitates physiologic load transfer to the bone, minimizing stress shielding.
Elastic Modulus (GPa)
.
.
.
.
.
.
Its compressive strength is comparable to bone; allowing it to withstand physiologic loading, (8).
Compressive Strength
.
.
.
And its high ductility allows it to handle overloads and deformation without brittle fracture, (3).
Patient-friendly Qualities
According to a recent university study, tantalum, which is the primary ingredient of Trabecular Metal implants, has demonstrated significantly better performance in magnetic resonance imaging than common titanium.
What’s more, elemental tantalum is also the most biocompatible metal available, with low antigenicity to minimize the risk of immune response.
With qualities like these, it’s no wonder Trabecular Metal Material has been used in medical applications since the 1940s, for implants ranging from skull plates to pacemaker leads to vascular clips. And since 1995, it has been used successfully in more than 100,000 orthopaedic surgeries, demonstrating remarkable success in diverse bone and soft-tissue applications.
Request Product Brochure / Surgical Technique
References
1. Bobyn JD, Stackpool G, Toh K-K, et al. Bone ingrowth characteristics and interface mechanics of a new porous tantalum biomaterial. J Bone Joint Surg. 1999;81-B:907-914.
2. Wigfield CC, Nelson RJ, Metcalf NH, et al. Clinical experience with two porous tantalum implants for anterior cervical interbody fusion; the difficulties in assessing fusion in a clinical setting. European Cervical Spine Research Society, LondonUK, 2000.
3. Medin DJ, Charlebois S, Swarts D, et al. Metallurgical characterization of a porous tantalum biomaterial (Trabecular Metalä) for orthopaedic implant applications. ASM Materials and Processes for Medical Devices Conference, September 8-10, 2003, AnaheimCA, publication in process.
4. Zou X, Li H, Bunger M, Xue Q, Eglund N, Lind M, Bunger C. Characteristic of the bone ingrowth on the porous tantalum implants in porcine lumbar interbody fusion model, ISSLS. 2002, ClevelandOH.
5. Tanzer M, Harvey E, Kay A, et al. Effect of noninvasive low intensity ultrasound on bone growth into porous coated implants. J Orthop Res. 1996;14:901-906.
6. Bobyn JD, Pillar RM, Cameron HU, et al. The optimum pore size for the fixation of porous surfaced metal implants by the ingrowth on bone. Clin Ortho Rel Res. 1980;150:263-270.
7. Bobyn JD, Lewallen D, Hanssen A, O’Keefe T, Lewis R, Unger A, Christie M, Nasser S, Tanzer M. Clinical Validation of a Structural Porous Biomaterial for Adult Reconstruction. Accepted for scientific exhibit at the 71st AAOS, San Francisco, CA, March 10-14, 2004.
8. Krygier JJ, Bobyn JD, Poggie RA, et al. Mechanical characterization of a new porous tantalum biomaterial for othopaedic reconstruction. Proc SIROT. Sydney Australia, 1999.
9. Zhang Y, Ahn PB, Fitzpatrick DC, Heiner AD, Poggie RA, Brown TD. Interfacial frictional behavior: cancellous bone, cortical bone, and a novel porous tantalum biomaterial. J Musculoskel Res. 1999;3(4):245-251.
10. Bobyn JD, Toh KK, Hacking SA, Tanzer M, Krygier JJ. Tissue Response to Porous Tantalum Acetabular Cups-A Canine Model. Jarthroplasty, 1999, 14(3), ppg. 347-354.
11. Bobyn JD, Hacking SA, Krygier JJ, et. al. Characterization of a new porus tantalum biomaterial for reconstructive surgery. 66th AAOS, Anahem, CA , Feb. 4-8, 1999.
Go to the Patient/Caregiver part of the site for patient information: www.europe-zimmerspine.com
