Top

European Spine Journal

Published in:

01-04-2017 | Original Article

Biomechanical consideration of prosthesis selection in hybrid surgery for bi-level cervical disc degenerative diseases

Authors: Zhongjun Mo, Qi Li, Zhiwei Jia, Jiemeng Yang, Duo Wai-Chi Wong, Yubo Fan

Published in: European Spine Journal | Issue 4/2017

Abstract

Purpose

Hybrid surgery (HS) coupling total disc replacement and fusion has been increasingly applied for multilevel cervical disc diseases (CDD). However, selection of the optimal disc prosthesis for HS in an individual patient has not been investigated. This study aimed to distinguish the biomechanical performances of five widely used prostheses (Bryan, ProDisc-C, PCM, Mobi-C, and Discover) in HS for the treatment of bi-level CDD.

Methods

A finite element model of healthy cervical spine (C3–C7) was developed, and five HS models using different disc prostheses were constructed by arthrodesis at C4–C5 and by arthroplasty at C5–C6. First, the rotational displacements in flexion (Fl), extension, axial rotation, and lateral bending in the healthy model under 1.0 Nm moments combined with 73.6 N follower load were achieved, and then the maximum rotations in each direction combined with the same follower load were applied in the surgical models following displacement control testing protocols.

Results

The range of motion (ROM) of the entire operative and adjacent levels was close to that of the healthy spine for ball-in-socket prostheses, that is, ProDisc-C, Mobi-C, and Discover, in Fl. For Bryan and PCM, the ROM of the operative levels was less than that of the healthy spine in Fl and resulted in the increase in ROMs at the adjacent levels. Ball-in-socket prostheses produced similar reaction moments (92–99 %) in Fl, which were close to that of the healthy spine. Meanwhile, Bryan and PCM required greater moments (>130 %). The adjacent intradiscal pressures (IDPs) in the models of ball-in-socket prostheses were close to that of the healthy spine. Meanwhile, in the models of Bryan and PCM, the adjacent IDPs were 25 % higher than that of the ball-in-socket models. The maximum facet stress in the model of Mobi-C was the greatest among all prostheses, which was approximately two times that of the healthy spine. Moreover, Bryan produced the largest stress on the bone–implant interface, followed by PCM, Mobi-C, ProDisc-C, and Discover.

Conclusion

Each disc prosthesis has its biomechanical advantages and disadvantages in HS and should be selected on an individual patient basis. In general, ProDisc-C, Mobi-C, and Discover produced similar performances in terms of spinal motions, adjacent IDPs, and driving moments, whereas Bryan and PCM produced similar biomechanical performances. Therefore, HS with Discover, Bryan, and PCM may be suitable for patients with potential risk of facet joint degeneration, whereas HS with ProDisc-C, Mobi-C, and Discover may be suitable for patients with potential risk of vertebral osteoporosis.

Hilibrand AS, Robbins M (2004) Adjacent segment degeneration and adjacent segment disease: the consequences of spinal fusion? Spine J 4:S190–S194CrossRef

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 30:1165–1172CrossRefPubMed

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 16:314–323CrossRefPubMed

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 CrossRefPubMed

Levin DA, Hale JJ, Bendo JA (2007) Adjacent segment degeneration following spinal fusion for degenerative disc disease. Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis 65:29–36PubMed

Matsumoto M, Okada E, Ichihara D, Watanabe K, Chiba K, Toyama Y (2010) Adjacent segment disease and degeneration after anterior cervical decompression and fusion. Neurosurg Q 20:15–22. doi:10.1097/WNQ.0b013e3181ce0d13 CrossRef

Maldonado C, Paz R, Martin C (2011) Adjacent-level degeneration after cervical disc arthroplasty versus fusion. Eur Spine J 20:403–407CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Prasarn ML, Baria D, Milne E, Latta L, Sukovich W (2011) Adjacent-level biomechanics after single versus multilevel cervical spine fusion. J Neurosurg Spine 16:172–177. doi:10.3171/2011.10.SPINE11116 CrossRefPubMed

Park D, Ramakrishnan P, Cho T, Lorenz E, Eck JC, Humphreys SC, Lim T (2007) Effect of lower two-level anterior cervical fusion on the superior adjacent level. J Neurosurg Spine 7:336–340. doi:10.3171/SPI-07/09/336 CrossRefPubMed

10.

Shin DA, Yi S, Yoon DH, Kim KN, Shin HC (2009) Artificial disc replacement combined with fusion versus two-level fusion in cervical two-level disc disease. Spine 34:1153–1159CrossRefPubMed

11.

Barbagallo G, Assietti R, Corbino L, Olindo G, Foti P, Russo V, Albanese V (2009) Early results and review of the literature of a novel hybrid surgical technique combining cervical arthrodesis and disc arthroplasty for treating multilevel degenerative disc disease: opposite or complementary techniques? Eur Spine J 18:29–39CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

Cunningham BW, Hu N, Zorn CM, McAfee PC (2010) Biomechanical comparison of single- and two-level cervical arthroplasty versus arthrodesis: effect on adjacent-level spinal kinematics. Spine J 10:341–349CrossRefPubMed

13.

Barrey C, Campana S, Persohn S, Perrin G, Skalli W (2012) Cervical disc prosthesis versus arthrodesis using one-level, hybrid and two-level constructs: an in vitro investigation. Eur Spine J 21:432–442. doi:10.1007/s00586-011-1974-4 CrossRefPubMed

14.

Zhao Y, Li Q, Mo Z, Sun Y, Fan Y (2013) Finite element analysis of cervical arthroplasty combined with fusion against 2-level fusion. J Spinal Disord Tech 26:347–350CrossRefPubMed

15.

Cho BY, Lim J, Sim HB, Park J (2010) Biomechanical analysis of the range of motion after placement of a two-level cervical ProDisc-C versus hybrid construct. Spine 35:1769–1776CrossRefPubMed

16.

Crawford N, Safavi-Abbasi S, Baek S, Reyes P, Senoglu M, Sonntag V (2008) Biomechanics of multilevel cervical arthroplasty and combined arthrodesis and arthroplasty. Spine J 8:156SCrossRef

17.

Mo Z, Zhao Y, Du C, Sun Y, Zhang M, Fan Y (2015) Does location of rotation center in artificial disc affect cervical biomechanics? Spine 40:E469–E475CrossRefPubMed

18.

Galbusera F, Bellini CM, Brayda-Bruno M, Fornari M (2008) Biomechanical studies on cervical total disc arthroplasty: a literature review. Clin Biomech 23:1095–1104. doi:10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2008.06.002 CrossRef

19.

Keaveny TM, Buckley JM (2006) Biomechanics of Vertebral Bone. In: Kurtz SM, Edidin AA (eds) Spine technology handbook. Elsevier Inc., Burlington, pp 63–98CrossRef

20.

Yoganandan N, Knowles SA, Maiman DJ, Pintar FA (2003) Anatomic study of the morphology of human cervical facet joint. Spine 28:2317–2323. doi:10.1097/01.BRS.0000085356.89103.A5 CrossRefPubMed

21.

Denozière G, Ku DN (2006) Biomechanical comparison between fusion of two vertebrae and implantation of an artificial intervertebral disc. J Biomech 39:766–775CrossRefPubMed

22.

Yoganandan N, Kumaresan S, Pintar FA (2000) Geometric and mechanical properties of human cervical spine ligaments. J Biomech Eng 122:623–629. doi:10.1115/1.1322034 CrossRefPubMed

23.

Drake RL, Vogl AW, Mitchell AWM, Tibbitts R, Richardson P (2008) Gray’s atlas of anatomy. Churchill livingstone Elsevier, Philadelphia

24.

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 29:1737–1745CrossRefPubMed

25.

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:E1126–E1133CrossRefPubMed

26.

Wai-Chi WD, Wang Y, Zhang M, Kam-Lun LA (2015) Functional restoration and risk of non-union of the first metatarsocuneiform arthrodesis for hallux valgus: a finite element approach. J Biomech 48:3142–3148. doi:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2015.07.013 CrossRef

27.

Panzer MB, Cronin DS (2009) C4–C5 segment finite element model development, validation, and load-sharing investigation. J Biomech 42:480–490CrossRefPubMed

28.

Moroney SP, Schultz AB, Miller JAA, Andersson GBJ (1988) Load-displacement properties of lower cervical spine motion segments. J Biomech 21:769–779CrossRefPubMed

29.

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 26:2692–2700CrossRefPubMed

30.

Goel VK, Panjabi MM, Patwardhan AG, Dooris AP, Serhan H (2006) Test protocols for evaluation of spinal implants. J Bone Joint Surg 88:103–109PubMed

31.

Finn MA, Brodke DS, Daubs M, Patel A, Bachus KN (2009) Local and global subaxial cervical spine biomechanics after single-level fusion or cervical arthroplasty. Eur Spine J 18:1520–1527. doi:10.1007/s00586-009-1085-7 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

32.

Faizan A, Goel VK, Biyani A, Garfin SR, Bono CM (2012) Adjacent level effects of bi level disc replacement, bi level fusion and disc replacement plus fusion in cervical spine—a finite element based study. Clin Biomech 27:226–233. doi:10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2011.09.014 CrossRef

33.

Gandhi AA, Kode S, DeVries NA, Grosland NM, Smucker JD, Fredericks DC (2015) Biomechanical analysis of cervical disc replacement and fusion using single level, two level, and hybrid constructs. Spine 40:1578–1585CrossRefPubMed

34.

Griffin MJ (2001) The validation of biodynamic models. CLIN BIOMECH 16(Supplement 1):S81–S92CrossRef

35.

Wilke HJ, Neef P, Caimi M, Hoogland T, LE Claes (1999) New in vivo measurements of pressures in the intervertebral disc in daily life. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 24:755–762CrossRef

36.

Mo Z, Zhao Y, Wang L, Sun Y, Zhang M, Fan Y (2014) Biomechanical effects of cervical arthroplasty with U-shaped disc implant on segmental range of motion and loading of surrounding soft tissue. Eur Spine J 23:613–621. doi:10.1007/s00586-013-3070-4 CrossRefPubMed

37.

McNally DS, Shackleford IM, Goodship AE, Mulholland RC (1996) In vivo stress measurement can predict pain on discography. Spine 21:2580–2587CrossRefPubMed

Title: Biomechanical consideration of prosthesis selection in hybrid surgery for bi-level cervical disc degenerative diseases
Authors: Zhongjun Mo
Qi Li
Zhiwei Jia
Jiemeng Yang
Duo Wai-Chi Wong
Yubo Fan
Publication date: 01-04-2017
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: European Spine Journal / Issue 4/2017
Print ISSN: 0940-6719
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0932
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4777-9

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Biomechanical consideration of prosthesis selection in hybrid surgery for bi-level cervical disc degenerative diseases

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 4/2017

Cervical facet dislocations in the adolescent population: a report of 21 cases at a Level 1 trauma center from 2004 to 2014

C2 spondylotic radiculopathy: the nerve root impingement mechanism investigated by para-sagittal CT/MRI, dynamic rotational CT, intraoperative microscopic findings, and treated by microscopic posterior foraminotomy

Predicting nonrecovery among whiplash patients in the emergency room and in an insurance company setting

Double-door cervical laminoplasty with suture anchors: evaluation of the clinical performance of the constructs

The feasibility of inserting a C1 pedicle screw in patients with ponticulus posticus: a retrospective analysis of eleven patients

Management of destructive Candida albicans spondylodiscitis of the cervical spine: a systematic analysis of literature illustrated by an unusual case