Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
European Spine Journal
Published in: European Spine Journal 5/2012

01-06-2012 | Original Article

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

Authors: A. G. Patwardhan, M. N. Tzermiadianos, P. P. Tsitsopoulos, L. I. Voronov, S. M. Renner, M. L. Reo, G. Carandang, K. Ritter-Lang, R. M. Havey

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

Login to get access

Abstract

This study tested the hypotheses that (1) cervical total disc replacement with a compressible, six-degree-of-freedom prosthesis would allow restoration of physiologic range and quality of motion, and (2) the kinematic response would not be adversely affected by variability in prosthesis position in the sagittal plane. Twelve human cadaveric cervical spines were tested. Prostheses were implanted at C5–C6. Range of motion (ROM) was measured in flexion–extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation under ±1.5 Nm moments. Motion coupling between axial rotation and lateral bending was calculated. Stiffness in the high flexibility zone was evaluated in all three testing modes, while the center of rotation (COR) was calculated using digital video fluoroscopic images in flexion–extension. Implantation in the middle position increased ROM in flexion–extension from 13.5 ± 2.3 to 15.7 ± 3.0° (p < 0.05), decreased axial rotation from 9.9 ± 1.7 to 8.3 ± 1.6° (p < 0.05), and decreased lateral bending from 8.0 ± 2.1 to 4.5 ± 1.1° (p < 0.05). Coupled lateral bending decreased from 0.62 ± 0.16 to 0.39 ± 0.15° for each degree of axial rotation (p < 0.05). Flexion–extension stiffness of the reconstructed segment with the prosthesis in the middle position did not deviate significantly from intact controls, whereas the lateral bending and axial rotation stiffness values were significantly larger than intact. Implanting the prosthesis in the posterior position as compared to the middle position did not significantly affect the ROM, motion coupling, or stiffness of the reconstructed segment; however, the COR location better approximated intact controls with the prosthesis midline located within ±1 mm of the disc-space midline. Overall, the kinematic response after reconstruction with the compressible, six-degree-of-freedom prosthesis within ±1 mm of the disc-space midline approximated the intact response in flexion–extension. Clinical studies are needed to understand and interpret the effects of limited restoration of lateral bending and axial rotation motions and motion coupling on clinical outcome.
Literature
1.
Baba H, Furusawa N, Imura S, Kawahara N, Tsuchiya H, Tomita K (1993) Late radiographic findings after anterior cervical fusion for spondylotic myeloradiculopathy. Spine 18:2167–2173PubMedCrossRef
2.
Bland JM, Altman DG (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1:307–310PubMedCrossRef
3.
4.
5.
Buchowski JM, Riew KD (2008) Primary indications and disc space preparation for cervical disc arthroplasty. In: Yue JJ, Bertagnoli R, McAfee PC, An HS (eds) Motion preservation surgery of the spine. Saunders Elsevier, Philadelphia, pp 185–192CrossRef
6.
Chang UK, Kim DH, Lee MC, Willenberg R, Kim SH, Lim J (2007) Range of motion change after cervical arthroplasty with ProDisc-C and prestige artificial discs compared with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. J Neurosurg Spine 7:40–46. doi:10.​3171/​SPI-07/​07/​040 PubMedCrossRef
7.
Cherry C (2002) Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for cervical disc disease. AORN J 76:998–1004, 1007–1008, quiz 1009–1012
8.
Delamarter RB, Pradhan BB (2008) ProDisc-C total cervical disc replacement. In: Yue JJ, Bertagnoli R, McAfee PC, An HS (eds) Motion preservation surgery of the spine. Saunders Elsevier, Philadelphia, pp 214–220CrossRef
9.
DiAngelo DJ, Roberston JT, Metcalf NH, McVay BJ, Davis RC (2003) Biomechanical testing of an artificial cervical joint and an anterior cervical plate. J Spinal Disord Tech 16:314–323PubMedCrossRef
10.
Dmitriev AE, Cunningham BW, Hu N, Sell G, Vigna F, McAfee PC (2005) Adjacent level intradiscal pressure and segmental kinematics following a cervical total disc arthroplasty: an in vitro human cadaveric model. Spine 30:1165–1172. doi:00007632-200505150-00011[pii] PubMedCrossRef
11.
Dooris AP, Goel VK, Grosland NM, Gilbertson LG, Wilder DG (2001) Load-sharing between anterior and posterior elements in a lumbar motion segment implanted with an artificial disc. Spine 26:E122–E129PubMedCrossRef
12.
Duggal N, Pickett GE, Mitsis DK, Keller JL (2004) Early clinical and biomechanical results following cervical arthroplasty. Neurosurg Focus 17:E9. doi:170309[pii] PubMedCrossRef
13.
14.
15.
Fuller DA, Kirkpatrick JS, Emery SE, Wilber RG, Davy DT (1998) A kinematic study of the cervical spine before and after segmental arthrodesis. Spine 23:1649–1656PubMedCrossRef
16.
17.
18.
Goffin J, Geusens E, Vantomme N, Quintens E, Waerzeggers Y, Depreitere B, Van Calenbergh F, van Loon J (2004) Long-term follow-up after interbody fusion of the cervical spine. J Spinal Disord Tech 17:79–85PubMedCrossRef
19.
Hilibrand AS, Carlson GD, Palumbo MA, Jones PK, Bohlman HH (1999) Radiculopathy and myelopathy at segments adjacent to the site of a previous anterior cervical arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 81:519–528PubMed
20.
Hipp JA, Wharton ND (2008) Quantitative motion analysis (QMA) of motion-preserving and fusion technologies for the spine. In: Yue JJ, Bertagnoli R, McAfee PC, An HS (eds) Motion preservation surgery of the spine. Saunders Elsevier, Philadeplhia, pp 85–96CrossRef
21.
Holmes A, Wang C, Han ZH, Dang GT (1994) The range and nature of flexion-extension motion in the cervical spine. Spine 19:2505–2510PubMedCrossRef
22.
23.
Ishii T, Mukai Y, Hosono N, Sakaura H, Fujii R, Nakajima Y, Tamura S, Iwasaki M, Yoshikawa H, Sugamoto K (2006) Kinematics of the cervical spine in lateral bending: in vivo three-dimensional analysis. Spine 31:155–160PubMedCrossRef
24.
25.
Kotani Y, Cunningham BW, Abumi K, Dmitriev AE, Ito M, Hu N, Shikinami Y, McAfee PC, Minami A (2005) Multidirectional flexibility analysis of cervical artificial disc reconstruction: in vitro human cadaveric spine model. J Neurosurg Spine 2:188–194. doi:10.​3171/​spi.​2005.​2.​2.​0188 PubMedCrossRef
26.
27.
Lee M, Dumonski M, Phillips FM, Voronov LI, Renner SM, Carandang G, Havey RM, Patwardhan AG (2010) Disc replacement adjacent to cervical fusion: a biomechanical comparison of hybrid construct vs. two-level fusion. Spine (in press)
28.
Martin S, Ghanayem A, Tzermiadianos M, Voronov LI, Havey RM, Renner SM, Carandang G, Abjornson C, Patwadhan AG (2010) Kinematics of cervical total disc replacement adjacent to a two-level, straight vs. lordotic fusion. Spine (in press)
29.
McAfee PC (2008) Porous coated motion (PCM) cervical arthroplasty. In: Yue JJ, Bertagnoli R, McAfee PC, An HS (eds) Motion preservation surgery of the spine. Saunders Elsevier, Philadelphia, pp 202–213CrossRef
30.
31.
32.
33.
Mimura M, Moriya H, Watanabe T, Takahashi K, Yamagata M, Tamaki T (1989) Three-dimensional motion analysis of the cervical spine with special reference to the axial rotation. Spine 14:1135–1139PubMedCrossRef
34.
35.
Moroney SP, Schultz AB, Miller JA, Andersson GB (1988) Load-displacement properties of lower cervical spine motion segments. J Biomech 21:769–779PubMedCrossRef
36.
Panjabi MM (1992) The stabilizing system of the spine. Part II. Neutral zone and instability hypothesis. J Spinal Disord 5:390–396 discussion 397PubMedCrossRef
37.
Panjabi MM, Crisco JJ, Vasavada A, Oda T, Cholewicki J, Nibu K, Shin E (2001) Mechanical properties of the human cervical spine as shown by three-dimensional load-displacement curves. Spine 26:2692–2700PubMedCrossRef
38.
Panjabi MM, Miura T, Cripton PA, Wang JL, Nain AS, DuBois C (2001) Development of a system for in vitro neck muscle force replication in whole cervical spine experiments. Spine 26:2214–2219PubMedCrossRef
39.
40.
41.
Patwardhan AG, Havey RM, Ghanayem AJ, Diener H, Meade KP, Dunlap B, Hodges SD (2000) Load-carrying capacity of the human cervical spine in compression is increased under a follower load. Spine 25:1548–1554PubMedCrossRef
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
Reyes-Sánchez A, Patwardhan AG, Block JE (2008) The M6 artificial cervical disc. In: Yue JJ, Bertagnoli R, McAfee PC, An HS (eds) Motion preservation surgery of the spine. Saunders Elsevier, Philadelphia
47.
Richter M, Wilke HJ, Kluger P, Claes L, Puhl W (2000) Load-displacement properties of the normal and injured lower cervical spine in vitro. Eur Spine J 9:104–108PubMedCrossRef
48.
49.
Sears W, McCombe P, Sasso R (2006) Kinematics of cervical and lumbar total disc replacement. Semin Spine Surg 18:117–129CrossRef
50.
51.
Senouci M, FitzPatrick D, Quinlan JF, Mullett H, Coffey L, McCormack D (2007) Quantification of the coupled motion that occurs with axial rotation and lateral bending of the head-neck complex: an experimental examination. Proc Inst Mech Eng H 221:913–919PubMedCrossRef
52.
53.
Traynelis VC (2006) Cervical arthroplasty. Clin Neurosurg 53:203–207PubMed
54.
Tzermiadianos M, Voronov LI, Renner SM, Havey RM, Carandang G, Zindrick MR, Hadjipavlou A, Patwadhan A (2007) Effects of retained annular fibers on the kinematics of cervical disc arthroplasty. In: Cervical Spine Research Society annual meeting. San Francisco, CA
55.
Wigfield C, Gill S, Nelson R, Langdon I, Metcalf N, Robertson J (2002) Influence of an artificial cervical joint compared with fusion on adjacent-level motion in the treatment of degenerative cervical disc disease. J Neurosurg 96:17–21PubMed
56.
Wilke HJ, Wenger K, Claes L (1998) Testing criteria for spinal implants: recommendations for the standardization of in vitro stability testing of spinal implants. Eur Spine J 7:148–154PubMedCrossRef
57.
Wilke HJ, Wolf S, Claes LE, Arand M, Wiesend A (1995) Stability increase of the lumbar spine with different muscle groups. A biomechanical in vitro study. Spine 20:192–198PubMedCrossRef
58.
Metadata
Title
Primary and coupled motions after cervical total disc replacement using a compressible six-degree-of-freedom prosthesis
Authors
A. G. Patwardhan
M. N. Tzermiadianos
P. P. Tsitsopoulos
L. I. Voronov
S. M. Renner
M. L. Reo
G. Carandang
K. Ritter-Lang
R. M. Havey
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/s00586-010-1575-7

Other articles of this Special Issue 5/2012

European Spine Journal 5/2012 Go to the issue

Original Article

Kinematic evaluation of one- and two-level Maverick lumbar total disc replacement caudal to a long thoracolumbar spinal fusion

Original Article

Influence of the loading frequency on the wear rate of a polyethylene-on-metal lumbar intervertebral disc replacement

Original Article

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

Original Article

The use of self-mating PEEK as an alternative bearing material for cervical disc arthroplasty: a comparison of different simulator inputs and tribological environments

Original Article

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

Original Article

Effect of prosthesis endplate lordosis angles on L5-S1 kinematics after disc arthroplasty