Top

European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology

Published in:

Open Access 01-01-2016 | Original Article • CERVICAL SPINE - PROSTHESIS

The innovative viscoelastic CP ESP cervical disk prosthesis with six degrees of freedom: biomechanical concepts, development program and preliminary clinical experience

Authors: Jean-yves Lazennec, Alain Aaron, Olivier Ricart, Jean Patrick Rakover

Published in: European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology | Issue 1/2016

Abstract

The viscoelastic cervical disk prosthesis ESP is an innovative one-piece deformable but cohesive interbody spacer. It is an evolution of the LP ESP lumbar disk implanted since 2006. CP ESP provides six full degrees of freedom about the three axes including shock absorbtion. The prosthesis geometry allows limited rotation and translation with resistance to motion (elastic return property) aimed at avoiding overload of the posterior facets. The rotation center can vary freely during motion. The concept of the ESP prosthesis is fundamentally different from that of the devices currently used in the cervical spine. The originality of the concept of the ESP^® prosthesis led to innovative and intense testing to validate the adhesion of the viscoelastic component of the disk on the titanium endplates and to assess the mechanical properties of the PCU cushion. The preliminary clinical and radiological results with 2-year follow-up are encouraging for pain, function and kinematic behavior (range of motion and evolution of the mean centers of rotation). In this series, we did not observe device-related specific complications, misalignment, instability or ossifications. Additional studies and longer patient follow-up are needed to assess long-term reliability of this innovative implant.

Bartolomei JC, Theodore N, Sonntag VK (2005) Adjacent level degeneration after anterior cervical fusion: a clinical review. Neurosurg Clin N Am 16(4):575–587. doi:10.1016/j.nec.2005.07.004 PubMedCrossRef

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(2):79–85PubMedCrossRef

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(4):519–528PubMed

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 (Phila Pa 1976) 30(10):1165–1172CrossRef

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(1):40–46. doi:10.3171/SPI-07/07/040 PubMedCrossRef

Hwang SH, Kayanja M, Milks RA, Benzel EC (2007) Biomechanical comparison of adjacent segmental motion after ventral cervical fixation with varying angles of lordosis. Spine J 7(2):216–221. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2006.05.018 PubMedCrossRef

Fuller DA, Kirkpatrick JS, Emery SE, Wilber RG, Davy DT (1998) A kinematic study of the cervical spine before and after segmental arthrodesis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 23(15):1649–1656CrossRef

Katsuura A, Hukuda S, Saruhashi Y, Mori K (2001) Kyphotic malalignment after anterior cervical fusion is one of the factors promoting the degenerative process in adjacent intervertebral levels. Eur Spine J 10(4):320–324PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

Auerbach JD, Jones KJ, Fras CI, Balderston JR, Rushton SA, Chin KR (2008) The prevalence of indications and contraindications to cervical total disc replacement. Spine J 8(5):711–716. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2007.06.018 PubMedCrossRef

10.

Albert TJ, Eichenbaum MD (2004) Goals of cervical disc replacement. Spine J 4(6 Suppl):292S–293S. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2004.07.023 PubMedCrossRef

11.

Landi A (2013) Elastic resistance of the spine: why does motion preservation surgery almost fail? World J Clin Cases 1(4):134–139. doi:10.12998/wjcc.v1.i4.134 PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

12.

Liu B, Liu Z, VanHoof T, Kalala J, Zeng Z, Lin X (2014) Kinematic study of the relation between the instantaneous center of rotation and degenerative changes in the cervical intervertebral disc. Eur Spine J 23(11):2307–2313. doi:10.1007/s00586-014-3431-7 PubMedCrossRef

13.

Kim SW, Shin JH, Arbatin JJ, Park MS, Chung YK, McAfee PC (2008) Effects of a cervical disc prosthesis on maintaining sagittal alignment of the functional spinal unit and overall sagittal balance of the cervical spine. Eur Spine J 17(1):20–29. doi:10.1007/s00586-007-0459-y PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

14.

Galbusera F, Bellini CM, Brayda-Bruno M, Fornari M (2008) Biomechanical studies on cervical total disc arthroplasty: a literature review. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 23(9):1095–1104. doi:10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2008.06.002 CrossRef

15.

Fekete TF, Porchet F (2010) Overview of disc arthroplasty—past, present and future. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 152(3):393–404. doi:10.1007/s00701-009-0529-5 CrossRef

16.

Stanton P, Eck JC (2010) Materials and design characteristics of cervical arthroplasty devices. Techniques in Orthopaedics 25(2):93–96. doi:10.1097/BTO.0b013e3181df2ef3 CrossRef

17.

Lazennec JY, Aaron A, Brusson A, Rakover JP, Rousseau MA (2013) The LP-ESP((R)) lumbar disc prosthesis with 6 degrees of freedom: development and 7 years of clinical experience. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 23(2):131–143. doi:10.1007/s00590-012-1166-x PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

18.

Le Huec JC, Demezon H, Aunoble S (2015) Sagittal parameters of global cervical balance using EOS imaging: normative values from a prospective cohort of asymptomatic volunteers. Eur Spine J 24(1):63–71. doi:10.1007/s00586-014-3632-0 PubMedCrossRef

19.

Lazennec JY, Even J, Skalli W, Rakover JP, Brusson A, Rousseau MA (2014) Clinical outcomes, radiologic kinematics, and effects on sagittal balance of the 6 df LP-ESP lumbar disc prosthesis. Spine J 14(9):1914–1920. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2013.11.016 PubMedCrossRef

20.

Rousseau MA, Cottin P, Levante S, Nogier A, Lazennec JY, Skalli W (2008) In vivo kinematics of two types of ball-and-socket cervical disc replacements in the sagittal plane: cranial versus caudal geometric center. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33(1):E6–E9. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e31815e5dce CrossRef

21.

Anderson PA, Rouleau Jeffrey P, Toth Jeffrey M, Daniel Riew K (2004) A comparison of simulator-tested and -retrieved cervical disc prostheses. J Neurosurg Spine 1(2):202–210. doi:10.3171/spi.2004.1.2.0202 PubMedCrossRef

22.

Food and Drug Administration FDA (2009) Summary of safety and effectiveness data, ProDisc-C total disc replacement, P070001, 17 Dec 2007. http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf7/P070001b.pdf

23.

Grupp TM, Meisel HJ, Cotton JA, Schwiesau J, Fritz B, Blomer W, Jansson V (2010) Alternative bearing materials for intervertebral disc arthroplasty. Biomaterials 31(3):523–531. doi:10.1016/j.biomaterials.2009.09.064 PubMedCrossRef

24.

Food and Drug Administration FDA (2012) Summary of safety and effectiveness data, PCM disc replacement, P100012, 26 Oct 2012. http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf10/P100012b.pdf

25.

Food and Drug Administration FDA (2012) Summary of safety and effectiveness data, Secure-C total disc replacement, P100003, 28 Sept 2012. http://www.globusmedical.com/pdf/secure-c/SSED.pdf

26.

Food and Drug Administration FDA (2013) Summary of safety and effectiveness data, Mobi C total disc replacement, P110002, 7 Aug 2013. http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf11/P110002b.pdf

27.

Food and Drug Administration FDA (2014) Summary of safety and effectiveness data, Prestige LP cervical disc replacement, P090029, 24 July 2014. http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf9/P090029b.pdf

28.

Kurtz SM, Siskey R, Reitman M (2010) Accelerated aging, natural aging, and small punch testing of gamma-air sterilized polycarbonate urethane acetabular components. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 93(2):442–447. doi:10.1002/jbm.b.31601 PubMedCrossRef

29.

Christenson EM, Dadsetan M, Wiggins M, Anderson JM, Hiltner A (2004) Poly(carbonate urethane) and poly(ether urethane) biodegradation: in vivo studies. J Biomed Mater Res A 69(3):407–416. doi:10.1002/jbm.a.30002 PubMedCrossRef

Title: The innovative viscoelastic CP ESP cervical disk prosthesis with six degrees of freedom: biomechanical concepts, development program and preliminary clinical experience
Authors: Jean-yves Lazennec
Alain Aaron
Olivier Ricart
Jean Patrick Rakover
Publication date: 01-01-2016
Publisher: Springer Paris
Published in: European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology / Issue 1/2016
Print ISSN: 1633-8065
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1068
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-015-1695-1

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

The innovative viscoelastic CP ESP cervical disk prosthesis with six degrees of freedom: biomechanical concepts, development program and preliminary clinical experience

Abstract

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2016

ASA III osteoporotic fracture in 62 patients treated with vertebroplasty under local anesthesia

Acknowledgement to reviewers 2015

Clinical comparison of postoperative results of balloon kyphoplasty (BKP) versus radiofrequency-targeted vertebral augmentation (RF-TVA): a prospective clinical study

Tibial baseplate positioning in robotic-assisted and conventional unicompartmental knee arthroplasty

Medical morbidities in people following hip and knee arthroplasty: data from the Osteoarthritis Initiative

Reliability analysis of Cobb angle measurements of congenital scoliosis using X-ray and 3D-CT images