Top

European Spine Journal

Published in:

01-06-2012 | Original Article

An in vitro biomechanical comparison of Cadisc™-L with natural lumbar discs in axial compression and sagittal flexion

Authors: Donal McNally, Jason Naylor, Scott Johnson

Published in: European Spine Journal | Special Issue 5/2012

Abstract

Introduction

The elastomeric, monobloc disc prosthesis (Cadisc™-L, Ranier Technology, Cambridge, UK) aims to preserve biomechanics of an implanted spinal motion segment.

Study design

This study presents the findings of an in vitro investigation on the effect of implantation of Cadisc™-L. Compressive stiffness, flexion stiffness at 10, 20, 30 and 40 Nm and the instant-axis-of-rotation (IAR) loci are compared before and after implantation of a MC-10 mm-6° Cadisc™-L.

Methods

Fresh frozen human monosegmental lumbar spines (n = 8) were prepared, potted and tested in an environmentally controlled chamber to simulate in vivo conditions. Specimens were preconditioned by loading to 500 N for 30 min. Compressive stiffness of the specimen was determined by applying pure compression of 1 kN at 250 N/s via a loading roller positioned at the central loading axis (CLA). The roller was then offset 12.5 mm anterior of the CLA and the loading regime repeated to test specimens in flexion. Bending moments were calculated from the applied load and corresponding flexion angle. The IAR locus was tracked by a motion-tracking camera.

Results

Compressive stiffness was reduced by 50 % (p = 0.0005), flexion stiffness was not statistically significantly reduced (40 % reduction, p > 0.05). IAR locus maintained a ‘horizontal figure of eight’ characteristic. Change in the locus width in the AP plane of 6.4 mm (p = 0.06) and height in the SI plane of 1.3 mm (p = 0.44) were not significant. The centroid was displaced 4.44 mm (p = 0.0019) and 5.44 mm (p = 0.025) at 3° and 6° flexion, respectively.

Conclusions

Implantation of Cadisc™-L caused a reduction in axial stiffness, but maintained disc height and flexion stiffness. IAR loci remained mobile without large displacement of the centroid from the intact spine position.

Waris E et al (2007) Disc degeneration in low back pain: a 17-year follow-up study using magnetic resonance imaging. Spine 32(6):681–684PubMedCrossRef

Tanaka N et al (2001) The relationship between disc degeneration and flexibility of the lumbar spine. Spine J 1(1):47–56PubMedCrossRef

Burton AK et al (1996) Lumbar disc degeneration and sagittal flexibility. J Spinal Disord 9(5):418–424PubMedCrossRef

Mimura M et al (1994) Disc degeneration affects the multidirectional flexibility of the lumbar spine. Spine 19(12):1371–1380PubMedCrossRef

van Ooij A et al (2007) Polyethylene wear debris and long-term clinical failure of the Charite disc prosthesis: a study of 4 patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32(2):223–229CrossRef

Kurtz SM et al (2007) Polyethylene wear and rim fracture in total disc arthroplasty. Spine J 7(1):12–21PubMedCrossRef

Ranier (2010) Cadisc™-L product description. [cited 2010 26-04-10. The manufacturer’s product information for Cadisc™-L device]. Available from: http://www.ranier.co.uk/index.php?public//products/cadisc-l

Gwynne JH, Oyen ML, Cameron RE (2010) Preparation of polymeric samples containing a graduated modulus region and development of nanoindentation linescan techniques. Polym Testing 29(4):494–502CrossRef

Adams MA, Dolan P (1991) A technique for quantifying the bending moment acting on the lumbar spine in vivo. J Biomech 24(2):117–126PubMedCrossRef

10.

Thompson JP et al (1990) Preliminary evaluation of a scheme for grading the gross morphology of the human intervertebral disc. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 15(5):411–415CrossRef

11.

de Visser H, Rowe C, Pearcy M (2007) A robotic testing facility for the measurement of the mechanics of spinal joints. Proc Inst Mech Eng [H] 221(3):221–227CrossRef

12.

Adams MA (1995) Mechanical testing of the spine. An appraisal of methodology, results, and conclusions. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 20(19):2151–2156CrossRef

13.

Oxland TR et al (1992) The effect of injury on rotational coupling at the lumbosacral joint. A biomechanical investigation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 17(1):74–80CrossRef

14.

Reuleaux F (1876) Kinematics of Machinery. MacMillan and Co, New York

15.

Hansson T, Roos B, Nachemson A (1980) The bone mineral content and ultimate compressive strength of lumbar vertebrae. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 5(1):46–55CrossRef

16.

Heuer F et al (2007) Stepwise reduction of functional spinal structures increase range of motion and change lordosis angle. J Biomech 40(2):271–280PubMedCrossRef

17.

Hitchon PW et al (2005) Biomechanical studies of an artificial disc implant in the human cadaveric spine. J Neurosurg Spine 2(3):339–343PubMedCrossRef

18.

Kotani Y et al (2006) Multidirectional flexibility analysis of anterior and posterior lumbar artificial disc reconstruction: in vitro human cadaveric spine model. Eur Spine J 15(10):1511–1520PubMedCrossRef

19.

Rousseau MA et al (2006) Disc arthroplasty design influences intervertebral kinematics and facet forces. Spine J 6(3):258–266PubMedCrossRef

20.

Gertzbein SD et al (1985) Centrode patterns and segmental instability in degenerative disc disease. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 10(3):257–261CrossRef

21.

Gertzbein SD et al (1986) Centrode characteristics of the lumbar spine as a function of segmental instability. Clin Orthop Relat Res 208:48–51PubMed

22.

Pearcy MJ, Bogduk N (1988) Instantaneous axes of rotation of the lumbar intervertebral joints. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 13(9):1033–1041CrossRef

23.

Seligman JV et al (1984) Computer analysis of spinal segment motion in degenerative disc disease with and without axial loading. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 9(6):566–573CrossRef

24.

Ogston NG et al (1986) Centrode patterns in the lumbar spine. Baseline studies in normal subjects. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 11(6):591–595CrossRef

Title: An in vitro biomechanical comparison of Cadisc™-L with natural lumbar discs in axial compression and sagittal flexion
Authors: Donal McNally
Jason Naylor
Scott Johnson
Publication date: 01-06-2012
Publisher: Springer-Verlag
Published in: European Spine Journal / Issue Special Issue 5/2012
Print ISSN: 0940-6719
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0932
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-012-2249-4

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

An in vitro biomechanical comparison of Cadisc™-L with natural lumbar discs in axial compression and sagittal flexion

Abstract

Introduction

Study design

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Introduction

Study design

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Special Issue 5/2012

Resect or not to resect: the role of posterior longitudinal ligament in lumbar total disc replacement

Preferential superior surface motion in wear simulations of the Charité total disc replacement

Do design variations in the artificial disc influence cervical spine biomechanics? A finite element investigation

Primary and coupled motions after cervical total disc replacement using a compressible six-degree-of-freedom prosthesis

Parameters that effect spine biomechanics following cervical disc replacement

Use of a personalized hybrid biomechanical model to assess change in lumbar spine function with a TDR compared to an intact spine