Top

Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Research article

Biomechanical evaluation of cervical disc replacement with a novel prosthesis based on the physiological curvature of endplate

Authors: Jigang Lou, Yuanchao Li, Beiyu Wang, Yang Meng, Quan Gong, Hao Liu

Published in: Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research | Issue 1/2018

Abstract

Background

Most of the current available cervical disc prostheses present a flat surface instead of an arcuate surface which is most similar to the morphology of cervical endplate. Therefore, we designed a novel prosthesis (Pretic-I, Trauson) based on the physiological curvature of the cervical endplate. Biomechanical evaluation of cervical disc replacement (CDR) with this novel prosthesis was performed and compared with the Prestige LP prosthesis.

Methods

Three motion segments of 18 cadaveric cervical specimens (C2-C7) were evaluated with a 75 N follower load. Overall, the biomechanics of three models, intact specimen, CDR with the novel prosthesis and CDR with the Prestige LP prosthesis, were studied to gain insight into the effective function of the novel prosthesis. The range of motion (ROM) of all three segments and intradiscal pressure (IDP) on adjacent levels were measured and analysed.

Results

Compared to the intact condition, the ROM of all three segments showed no significant difference in the replacement group. Moreover, there was also no significant difference in the ROM between the two prostheses. Besides, the IDP on the cranial adjacent level showed no obvious difference between the two prostheses; nevertheless, the IDP on the caudal adjacent level of the novel prosthesis was significantly less than the Prestige LP prosthesis.

Conclusions

In summary, the novel disc prosthesis was effective to maintain the ROM at the target segment and adjacent segments. Besides, CDR with the novel prosthesis could reduce the IDP on the caudal adjacent level to a certain extent, compared with the Prestige LP prosthesis.

Available only for authorised users

Sasso RC, Smucker JD, Hacker RJ, Heller JG. Artificial disc versus fusion: a prospective, randomized study with 2-year follow-up on 99 patients. Spine. 2007;32:2933–40. (Phila Pa 1976)CrossRefPubMed

Phillips FM, Allen TR, Regan JJ, Albert TJ, Cappuccino A, Devine JG, et al. Cervical disc replacement in patients with and without previous adjacent level fusion surgery: a prospective study. Spine. 2009;34:556–65. (Phila Pa 1976)CrossRefPubMed

Kraft M, Koch DK, Bushelow M. An investigation into PEEK-on-PEEK as a bearing surface candidate for cervical total disc replacement. Spine J. 2012;12:603–11.CrossRefPubMed

Chang KE, Pham MH, Hsieh PC. Adjacent segment disease requiring reoperation in cervical total disc arthroplasty: a literature review and update. J Clin Neurosci. 2017;37:20–4.CrossRefPubMed

David Kaye I, Hilibrand AS. Adjacent level disease-background and update based on disc replacement data. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2017;10:147–52.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Bertagnoli R, Zigler J, Karg A, Voigt S. Complications and strategies for revision surgery in total disc replacement. Orthop Clin North Am. 2005;36:389–95.CrossRefPubMed

Cavanaugh DA, Nunley PD, Kerr EJ 3rd, Werner DJ, Jawahar A. Delayed hyper-reactivity to metal ions after cervical disc arthroplasty: a case report and literature review. Spine. 2009;34:E262–5. (Phila Pa 1976)CrossRefPubMed

Lou J, Liu H, Rong X, Li H, Wang B, Gong Q. Geometry of inferior endplates of the cervical spine. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2016;142:132–6.CrossRefPubMed

Chen H, Zhong J, Tan J, Wu D, Jiang D. Sagittal geometry of the middle and lower cervical endplates. Eur Spine J. 2013;22:1570–5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

10.

de Beer N, Scheffer C. Reducing subsidence risk by using rapid manufactured patient-specific intervertebral disc implants. Spine J. 2012;12:1060–6.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Müller-Gerbl M, Weißer S, Linsenmeier U. The distribution of mineral density in the cervical vertebral endplates. Eur. Spine J. 2008;17:432–8.CrossRef

12.

Zhao FD, Pollintine P, Hole BD, Adams MA, Dolan P. Vertebral fractures usually affect the cranial endplate because it is thinner and supported by less-dense trabecular bone. Bone. 2009;44:372–9.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Pitzen T, Schmitz B, Georg T, Barbier D, Beuter T, Steudel WI, et al. Variation of endplate thickness in the cervical spine. Eur Spine J. 2004;13:235–40.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

14.

Jiang JP, Gu HS, Liu WQ, Xue QH, Liao ZH. The measurement of cervical disc of Chinese people and its significance. Chin J Clin Anat. 2013;31:32–6.

15.

Dong L, Tan MS, Yan QH, Yi P, Yang F, Tang XS, et al. Footprint mismatch of cervical disc prostheses with Chinese cervical anatomic dimensions. Chin Med J. 2015;128:197–202.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

16.

Wu W, Lyu J, Liu H, Rong X, Wang B, Hong Y, et al. Wear assessments of a new cervical spinal disk prosthesis: influence of loading and kinematic patterns during in vitro wear simulation. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2015;229:619–28.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Lou J, Li Y, Wang B, Meng Y, Wu T, Liu H. In vitro biomechanical comparison after fixed- and mobile-core artificial cervical disc replacement versus fusion. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017;96:e8291.CrossRef

18.

Crawford NR, Baek S, Sawa AG, Safavi-Abbasi S, Sonntag VK, Duggal N. Biomechanics of a fixed-center of rotation cervical intervertebral disc prosthesis. Int J Spine Surg. 2012;6:34–42.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

19.

Miura T, Panjabi MM, Cripton PA. A method to simulate in vivo cervical spine kinematics using in vitro compressive preload. Spine. 2002;27:43–8. (Phila Pa 1976)CrossRefPubMed

20.

Cripton PA, Dumas GA, Nolte LP. A minimally disruptive technique for measuring intervertebral disc pressure in vitro: application to the cervical spine. J Biomech. 2001;34:545–9.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Yin S, Yu X, Zhou S, Yin Z, Qiu Y. Is cervical disc arthroplasty superior to fusion for treatment of symptomatic cervical disc disease? A meta-analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471:1904–19.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

22.

Tian W, Yan K, Han X, Yu J, Jin P, Han X. Comparison of the clinical and radiographic results between cervical artificial disc replacement and anterior cervical fusion: a six-year prospective non-randomized comparative study. Clin Spine Surg. 2017;30:E578–86.PubMed

23.

Wu AM, Xu H, Mullinix KP, Jin HM, Huang ZY, Lv QB, et al. Minimum 4-year outcomes of cervical total disc arthroplasty versus fusion: a meta-analysis based on prospective randomized controlled trials. Medicine. 2015;e665:94. (Baltimore)

24.

Puttlitz CM, Rousseau MA, Xu Z, Hu S, Tay BK, Lotz JC. Intervertebral disc replacement maintains cervical spine kinetics. Spine. 2004;29:2809–14. (Phila Pa 1976)CrossRefPubMed

25.

Barrey C, Campana S, Persohn S, Perrin G, Skalli W. Cervical disc prosthesis versus arthrodesis using one-level, hybrid and two-level constructs: an in vitro investigation. Eur Spine J. 2012;21:432–42.CrossRefPubMed

26.

Goel VK, Faizan A, Palepu V, Bhattacharya S. Parameters that effect spine biomechanics following cervical disc replacement. Eur Spine J. 2012;21(Suppl 5):S688–99.CrossRefPubMed

27.

Daentzer D, Welke B, Hurschler C, Husmann N, Jansen C, Flamme CH, et al. In vitro-analysis of kinematics and intradiscal pressures in cervical arthroplasty versus fusion—a biomechanical study in a sheep model with two semi-constrained prosthesis. Biomed Eng Online. 2015;14:27.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

28.

Thaler M, Hartmann S, Gstöttner M, Lechner R, Gabl M, Bach C. Footprint mismatch in total cervical disc arthroplasty. Eur Spine J. 2013;22:759–65.CrossRefPubMed

29.

Pham MH, Mehta VA, Tuchman A, Hsieh PC. Material science in cervical total disc replacement. Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:719123.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

30.

Tremblay J, Brailovski V, Mac-Thiong JM, Petit Y. Factors affecting intradiscal pressure measurement during in vitro biomechanical tests. Scoliosis. 2015;10(Suppl 2):S1.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Title: Biomechanical evaluation of cervical disc replacement with a novel prosthesis based on the physiological curvature of endplate
Authors: Jigang Lou
Yuanchao Li
Beiyu Wang
Yang Meng
Quan Gong
Hao Liu
Publication date: 01-12-2018
Publisher: BioMed Central
Published in: Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1749-799X
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-018-0748-7

ACC 2024 Congress

Springer Medicine

Biomechanical evaluation of cervical disc replacement with a novel prosthesis based on the physiological curvature of endplate

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

ACC 2024 Congress

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

Surgical management of chronic lateral ankle instability: a meta-analysis

Coatings as the useful drug delivery system for the prevention of implant-related infections

Early initiation of a strength training based rehabilitation after lumbar spine fusion improves core muscle strength: a randomized controlled trial

Roles and mechanisms of leptin in osteogenic stimulation in cervical ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament

Modified minimally invasive approach and intra-osseous portal for three-part proximal humeral fractures: a comparative study

Comparative effectiveness and safety of tranexamic acid plus diluted epinephrine to control blood loss during total hip arthroplasty: a meta-analysis