Does Location of Rotation Center in Artificial Disc Affect Cervical Biomechanics?

Study Design. A 3-dimensional finite element investigation. Objective. To compare the biomechanical performances of different rotation centers (RCs) in the prevalent artificial cervical discs. Summary of Background Data. Various configurations are applied in artificial discs. Design parameters may influence the biomechanics of implanted spine. The RC is a primary variation in the popular artificial discs. Methods. Implantation of 5 prostheses was simulated at C5–C6 on the basis of a validated finite element cervical model (C3–C7). The prostheses included ball-in-socket design with a fixed RC located on the inferior endplate (BS-FI) and on the superior endplate (BS-FS), with a mobile RC at the inferior endplate (BS-MI), dual articulation with a mobile RC between the endplates (DA-M), and sliding articulation with various RCs (SA-V). The spinal motions in flexion and extension served as a displacement loading at the C3 vertebrae. Results. Total disc replacements reduced extension moment. The ball-in-socket designs required less flexion moment, whereas the flexion stiffness of the spines with DA-M and SA-V was similar to that of the healthy model. The contributions of the implanted level to the global motions increased in the total disc replacements, except in the SA-V and DA-M models (in flexion). Ball-in-socket designs produced severe stress distributions in facet cartilage, whereas DA-M and SA-V produced more severe stress distribution on the bone-implant interface. Conclusion. Cervical stability was extremely affected in extension and partially affected in flexion by total disc replacement. With the prostheses with mobile RC, cervical curvature was readjusted under a low follower load. The SA-V and BS-FS designs exhibited better performances in the entire segmental stiffness and in the stability of the operative level than the BS-MI and BS-FI designs in flexion. The 5 designs demonstrated varying advantages relative to the stress distribution in the facet cartilages and on the bone-implant interface. Level of Evidence: 5

[1]  H. Ng,et al.  Biomechanical Effects of C2–C7 Intersegmental Stability due to Laminectomy With Unilateral and Bilateral Facetectomy , 2004, Spine.

[3]  N Yoganandan,et al.  Biomechanics of the cervical spine Part 2. Cervical spine soft tissue responses and biomechanical modeling. , 2001, Clinical biomechanics.

[4]  F. Galbusera,et al.  Biomechanical studies on cervical total disc arthroplasty: a literature review. , 2008, Clinical biomechanics.

[5]  Tony M. Keaveny,et al.  Biomechanics of Vertebral Bone , 2006 .

[6]  Daniel H. Kim,et al.  Changes in adjacent-level disc pressure and facet joint force after cervical arthroplasty compared with cervical discectomy and fusion. , 2007, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[7]  Bryan W Cunningham,et al.  Adjacent Level Intradiscal Pressure and Segmental Kinematics Following A Cervical Total Disc Arthroplasty: An In Vitro Human Cadaveric Model , 2005, Spine.

[8]  A. Hilibrand,et al.  Adjacent segment degeneration and adjacent segment disease: the consequences of spinal fusion? , 2004, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[9]  Matthew B Panzer,et al.  C4-C5 segment finite element model development, validation, and load-sharing investigation. , 2009, Journal of biomechanics.

[10]  D. Ku,et al.  Biomechanical comparison between fusion of two vertebrae and implantation of an artificial intervertebral disc. , 2006, Journal of biomechanics.

[11]  N Yoganandan,et al.  Geometric and mechanical properties of human cervical spine ligaments. , 2000, Journal of biomechanical engineering.

[12]  Eric P. Lorenz,et al.  Effect of lower two-level anterior cervical fusion on the superior adjacent level. , 2007, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[13]  A. Patwardhan,et al.  Test protocols for evaluation of spinal implants. , 2006, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[14]  Anton E. Bowden,et al.  Finite Element Modeling of the Spine , 2006 .

[15]  Daisuke Ichihara,et al.  Adjacent Segment Disease and Degeneration After Anterior Cervical Decompression and Fusion , 2010 .

[16]  J. Cholewicki,et al.  Mechanical Properties of the Human Cervical Spine as Shown by Three-Dimensional Load–Displacement Curves , 2001, Spine.

[17]  M. Marcolongo,et al.  Nucleus Replacement of the Intervertebral Disc , 2006 .

[18]  Haopeng Li,et al.  The Incidence of Adjacent Segment Degeneration after Cervical Disc Arthroplasty (CDA): A Meta Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials , 2012, PloS one.

[19]  V. Goel,et al.  Do design variations in the artificial disc influence cervical spine biomechanics? A finite element investigation , 2009, European Spine Journal.

[20]  V. Goel,et al.  Parameters that effect spine biomechanics following cervical disc replacement , 2012, European Spine Journal.

[21]  Michael A. Finn,et al.  Local and global subaxial cervical spine biomechanics after single-level fusion or cervical arthroplasty , 2009, European Spine Journal.

[22]  Kyungsoo Kim,et al.  Comparison of Cervical Spine Biomechanics After Fixed- and Mobile-Core Artificial Disc Replacement: A Finite Element Analysis , 2011, Spine.

[23]  R. R. Paz,et al.  Adjacent-level degeneration after cervical disc arthroplasty versus fusion , 2011, European Spine Journal.

[24]  Denis J. DiAngelo,et al.  Biomechanical Testing of an Artificial Cervical Joint and an Anterior Cervical Plate , 2003, Journal of spinal disorders & techniques.

[25]  A. Schultz,et al.  Load-displacement properties of lower cervical spine motion segments. , 1988, Journal of biomechanics.

[26]  Li Zhen Wang,et al.  Biomechanical effects of cervical arthroplasty with U-shaped disc implant on segmental range of motion and loading of surrounding soft tissue , 2014, European Spine Journal.

[27]  M J Griffin.  The validation of biodynamic models. , 2001, Clinical biomechanics.