Skip to main content
Top
Published in: European Spine Journal 3/2014

01-03-2014 | Original Article

Biomechanical effects of cervical arthroplasty with U-shaped disc implant on segmental range of motion and loading of surrounding soft tissue

Authors: Zhong Jun Mo, Yan Bin Zhao, Li Zhen Wang, Yu Sun, Ming Zhang, Yu Bo Fan

Published in: European Spine Journal | Issue 3/2014

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

Various design concepts have been adopted in cervical disc prostheses, including sliding articulation and standalone configuration. This study aimed to evaluate the biomechanical effects of the standalone U-shaped configuration on the cervical spine.

Methods

Based on an intact finite element model of C3–C7, a standalone U-shaped implant (DCI) was installed at C5–C6 and compared with a sliding articulation design (Prodisc-C) and an anterior fusion system. The range of motion (ROM), adjacent intradiscal pressure (IDP) and capsular ligament strain were calculated under different spinal motions.

Results

Compared to the intact configuration, the ROM at C5–C6 was reduced by 90 % after fusion, but increased by 70 % in the Prodisc-C model, while the maximum percentage change in the DCI model was 30 % decrease. At the adjacent segments, up to 32 % increase in ROM happened after fusion, while up to 34 % decrease occurred in Prodisc-C model and 17 % decrease in DCI model. The IDP increased by 11.6 % after fusion, but decreased by 5.6 and 6.3 % in the DCI and Prodisc-C model, respectively. The capsular ligament strain increased by 147 % in Prodisc-C and by 13 % in the DCI model. The DCI implant exhibited a high stress distribution.

Conclusions

Spinal fusion resulted in compensatory increase of ROM at the adjacent sites, thereby elevating the IDP. Prodisc-C resulted in hyper-mobility at the operative site that led to an increase of ligament force and strain. The U-shaped implant could maintain the spinal kinematics and impose minimum influence on the adjacent soft tissues, despite the standalone configuration encountering the disadvantages of high stress distribution.
Literature
2.
go back to reference Hilibrand AS, Robbins M (2004) Adjacent segment degeneration and adjacent segment disease: the consequences of spinal fusion? Spine J 4:S190–S194CrossRef Hilibrand AS, Robbins M (2004) Adjacent segment degeneration and adjacent segment disease: the consequences of spinal fusion? Spine J 4:S190–S194CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Chang UK, Kim DH, Lee MC, Willenberg R, Kim SH, Lim J (2007) Changes in adjacent-level disc pressure and facet joint force after cervical arthroplasty compared with cervical discectomy and fusion. J Neurosurg Spine 7:33–39. doi:10.3171/SPI-07/07/033 PubMedCrossRef Chang UK, Kim DH, Lee MC, Willenberg R, Kim SH, Lim J (2007) Changes in adjacent-level disc pressure and facet joint force after cervical arthroplasty compared with cervical discectomy and fusion. J Neurosurg Spine 7:33–39. doi:10.​3171/​SPI-07/​07/​033 PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference 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 30:1165–1172PubMedCrossRef 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 30:1165–1172PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Chang U, Kim DH, Lee MC, Willenberg R, Kim S, 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 7:40–46PubMedCrossRef Chang U, Kim DH, Lee MC, Willenberg R, Kim S, 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 7:40–46PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference 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 2:188–194PubMedCrossRef 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 2:188–194PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Lee S, Im Y, Kim K, Kim Y, Park W, Kim K (2011) Comparison of cervical spine biomechanics after fixed- and mobile-core artificial disc replacement: a finite element analysis. Spine 36:700–708PubMedCrossRef Lee S, Im Y, Kim K, Kim Y, Park W, Kim K (2011) Comparison of cervical spine biomechanics after fixed- and mobile-core artificial disc replacement: a finite element analysis. Spine 36:700–708PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Anderson PA, Sasso RC, Rouleau JP, Carlson CS, Goffin J (2004) The Bryan Cervical Disc: wear properties and early clinical results. Spine J 4:S303–S309CrossRef Anderson PA, Sasso RC, Rouleau JP, Carlson CS, Goffin J (2004) The Bryan Cervical Disc: wear properties and early clinical results. Spine J 4:S303–S309CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Matgé G, Eif M, Herdmann J, Lowery GL (2009) Dynamic Cervical Implant (DCI™): clinical results from an international multicenter prospective study. Paradigm Spine:1–3 Matgé G, Eif M, Herdmann J, Lowery GL (2009) Dynamic Cervical Implant (DCI™): clinical results from an international multicenter prospective study. Paradigm Spine:1–3
12.
go back to reference DiAngelo DJ, Foley KT, Morrow BR, Schwab JS, Song J, German JW, Blair E (2004) In vitro biomechanics of cervical disc arthroplasty with the ProDisc-C total disc implant. Neurosurg Focus 17:E7PubMed DiAngelo DJ, Foley KT, Morrow BR, Schwab JS, Song J, German JW, Blair E (2004) In vitro biomechanics of cervical disc arthroplasty with the ProDisc-C total disc implant. Neurosurg Focus 17:E7PubMed
13.
go back to reference Kurtz SM, Edidin AA (2006) Spine technology handbook. Elsevier Inc., Burlington Kurtz SM, Edidin AA (2006) Spine technology handbook. Elsevier Inc., Burlington
14.
go back to reference Denozière G, Ku DN (2006) Biomechanical comparison between fusion of two vertebrae and implantation of an artificial intervertebral disc. J Biomech 39:766–775PubMedCrossRef Denozière G, Ku DN (2006) Biomechanical comparison between fusion of two vertebrae and implantation of an artificial intervertebral disc. J Biomech 39:766–775PubMedCrossRef
15.
go back to reference Drake RL, Vogl AW, Mitchell AWM, Tibbitts R, Richardson P (2008) Gray’s Atlas of Anatomy. Churchill livingstone Elsevier, Philadelphia Drake RL, Vogl AW, Mitchell AWM, Tibbitts R, Richardson P (2008) Gray’s Atlas of Anatomy. Churchill livingstone Elsevier, Philadelphia
16.
go back to reference Narayan Y, Srirangam K, Frank AP (2000) Geometric and mechanical properties of human cervical spine ligaments. J Biomech Eng 122:623–629 Narayan Y, Srirangam K, Frank AP (2000) Geometric and mechanical properties of human cervical spine ligaments. J Biomech Eng 122:623–629
17.
go back to reference Hong-Wan N, Ee-Chon T, Qing-Hang Z (2004) Biomechanical Effects of C2–C7 intersegmental stability due to laminectomy with unilateral and bilateral facetectomy. Spine 29:1737–1745PubMedCrossRef Hong-Wan N, Ee-Chon T, Qing-Hang Z (2004) Biomechanical Effects of C2–C7 intersegmental stability due to laminectomy with unilateral and bilateral facetectomy. Spine 29:1737–1745PubMedCrossRef
18.
go back to reference Jirkova L, Horak Z (2009) Analysis of influence location of intervertebral implant on the lower cervical spine loading and stability. IFMBE Proceedings 23:1724–1727 Jirkova L, Horak Z (2009) Analysis of influence location of intervertebral implant on the lower cervical spine loading and stability. IFMBE Proceedings 23:1724–1727
19.
go back to reference 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 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
20.
go back to reference Moroney SP, Schultz AB, Miller JAA, Andersson GBJ (1988) Load–displacement properties of lower cervical spine motion segments. J Biomech 21:769–779PubMedCrossRef Moroney SP, Schultz AB, Miller JAA, Andersson GBJ (1988) Load–displacement properties of lower cervical spine motion segments. J Biomech 21:769–779PubMedCrossRef
22.
go back to reference McNally DS, Shackleford IM, Goodship AE, Mulholland RC (1996) In vivo stress measurement can predict pain on discography. Spine 21:2580–2587PubMedCrossRef McNally DS, Shackleford IM, Goodship AE, Mulholland RC (1996) In vivo stress measurement can predict pain on discography. Spine 21:2580–2587PubMedCrossRef
24.
go back to reference Liu F, Cheng J, Komistek RD, Mahfouz MR, Sharma A (2007) In vivo evaluation of dynamic characteristics of the normal, fused, and disc replacement cervical spines. Spine 32:2578–2584PubMedCrossRef Liu F, Cheng J, Komistek RD, Mahfouz MR, Sharma A (2007) In vivo evaluation of dynamic characteristics of the normal, fused, and disc replacement cervical spines. Spine 32:2578–2584PubMedCrossRef
27.
go back to reference Bauman JA, Jaumard NV, Guarino BB, Weisshaar CL, Lipschutz DE, Welch WC, Winkelstein BA (2012) Facet joint contact pressure is not significantly affected by ProDisc cervical disc arthroplasty in sagittal bending: a single-level cadaveric study. Spine J 12:949–959PubMedCrossRef Bauman JA, Jaumard NV, Guarino BB, Weisshaar CL, Lipschutz DE, Welch WC, Winkelstein BA (2012) Facet joint contact pressure is not significantly affected by ProDisc cervical disc arthroplasty in sagittal bending: a single-level cadaveric study. Spine J 12:949–959PubMedCrossRef
28.
go back to reference Womack W, Leahy PD, Patel VV, Puttlitz CM (2011) Finite element modeling of kinematic and load transmission alterations due to cervical intervertebral disc replacement. Spine 36 (Phila Pa 1976):E1126–E1133. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e31820e3dd1 CrossRef Womack W, Leahy PD, Patel VV, Puttlitz CM (2011) Finite element modeling of kinematic and load transmission alterations due to cervical intervertebral disc replacement. Spine 36 (Phila Pa 1976):E1126–E1133. doi:10.​1097/​BRS.​0b013e31820e3dd1​ CrossRef
29.
go back to reference Teoh SH (2000) Fatigue of biomaterials: a review. Int J Fatigue 22:825–837CrossRef Teoh SH (2000) Fatigue of biomaterials: a review. Int J Fatigue 22:825–837CrossRef
30.
go back to reference Goel VK, Panjabi MM, Patwardhan AG, Dooris AP, Serhan H (2006) Test protocols for evaluation of spinal implants. J Bone Joint Surg 88:103–109PubMedCrossRef Goel VK, Panjabi MM, Patwardhan AG, Dooris AP, Serhan H (2006) Test protocols for evaluation of spinal implants. J Bone Joint Surg 88:103–109PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Biomechanical effects of cervical arthroplasty with U-shaped disc implant on segmental range of motion and loading of surrounding soft tissue
Authors
Zhong Jun Mo
Yan Bin Zhao
Li Zhen Wang
Yu Sun
Ming Zhang
Yu Bo Fan
Publication date
01-03-2014
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Spine Journal / Issue 3/2014
Print ISSN: 0940-6719
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0932
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-013-3070-4

Other articles of this Issue 3/2014

European Spine Journal 3/2014 Go to the issue