Validated Finite Element Analysis of the Maverick Total Disc Prosthesis

Study Design Combining in vitro tests and finite element analysis to provide a more complete picture of the role that a disc prosthesis implant would play in the biomechanics of the spine. Objective Analysis of the disc function after total disc prosthesis insertion with and without antero-posterior or lateral offset and in combination with adjacent fusion. Summary of Background Data To avoid the risk of degenerative cascade the total disc replacement may be considered as an alternative. Few finite element analysis combined with cadaver testing under loading conditions have been published today. Materials and Methods In vitro tests were performed using 6 fresh human cadaver specimens to quantify the load-displacement behaviors before and after insertion of a total disc replacement (Maverick, Memphis) implant. A finite element (FE) spine model was validated with the data from the in vitro tests. This model is built on the basis of ANSYS software. The effect of the prosthesis positioning on the motion behavior at L4-L5 and on the inner loads over facets was evaluated in 4 configurations. Results The study showed that the motion behavior at the levels adjacent to the Maverick prosthesis remained the same as the intact spine, unlike a single level fusion at L5-S1. In the biomechanical study settings, Maverick prosthesis, once properly positioned, does not modify the motion behavior of the spine as compared with its intact state. The less-than-ideal positioning of the prosthesis, especially with anterior offset, affect significantly the range of motion of the spine segment and cause increase of inner load in the facets. Those results indicated a good reliability of the finite element model in representing both intact and instrumented spine segments. Discussion The in vitro test results demonstrated that Maverick disc prosthesis provides near physiologic function of a natural disc restores stability of the spine and preserves the segmental motion without undue stress on adjacent segments. To our knowledge, this study suggested for the first time the importance of the prosthesis positioning into the spine model.

[1]  Saiwei Yang,et al.  Finite-Element Modeling of the Synthetic Intervertebral Disc , 1991, Spine.

[2]  J. Le Huec,et al.  Influence of Facet and Posterior Muscle Degeneration on Clinical Results of Lumbar Total Disc Replacement: Two-Year Follow-Up , 2005, Journal of spinal disorders & techniques.

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

[4]  P. Guigui,et al.  [Long-term outcome at adjacent levels of lumbar arthrodesis]. , 1997, Revue de chirurgie orthopedique et reparatrice de l'appareil moteur.

[5]  W. Skalli,et al.  Total disc arthroplasty: consequences for sagittal balance and lumbar spine movement , 2007, European Spine Journal.

[6]  T. Zdeblick,et al.  Design rationale and biomechanics of Maverick Total Disc arthroplasty with early clinical results. , 2004, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[7]  R. Bertagnoli,et al.  Indications for full prosthetic disc arthroplasty: a correlation of clinical outcome against a variety of indications , 2002, European Spine Journal.

[8]  V K Goel,et al.  Three-dimensional motion behavior of the human spine--a question of terminology. , 1987, Journal of biomechanical engineering.

[9]  T. Errico Why a mechanical disc? , 2004, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[10]  Manohar M Panjabi,et al.  Effects of Charité Artificial Disc on the Implanted and Adjacent Spinal Segments Mechanics Using a Hybrid Testing Protocol , 2005, Spine.

[11]  Satoshi Nakamura,et al.  Biomechanical studies of an artificial disc implant in the human cadaveric spine. , 2005, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[12]  D. Marchesi Spinal fusions: bone and bone substitutes , 2000, European Spine Journal.

[13]  Vijay K Goel,et al.  Artificial disc prosthesis: design concepts and criteria. , 2004, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[14]  F. Postacchini,et al.  Results of Disc Prosthesis After a Minimum Follow‐Up Period of 2 Years , 1996, Spine.

[15]  V. Goel,et al.  Load-Sharing Between Anterior and Posterior Elements in a Lumbar Motion Segment Implanted With an Artificial Disc , 2001, Spine.

[16]  Anders Nordwall,et al.  Complications in lumbar fusion surgery for chronic low back pain: comparison of three surgical techniques used in a prospective randomized study. A report from the Swedish Lumbar Spine Study Group , 2003, European Spine Journal.

[17]  Wafa Skalli,et al.  New Interspinous Implant Evaluation Using an In Vitro Biomechanical Study Combined With a Finite-Element Analysis , 2007, Spine.

[18]  M M Panjabi,et al.  Biomechanical Evaluation of Spinal Fixation Devices: I. A Conceptual Framework , 1988, Spine.

[19]  W. Skalli,et al.  Intervertebral Disc Prosthesis: Results and Prospects for the Year 2000 , 1997, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[20]  David Mitton,et al.  3D reconstruction method from biplanar radiography using non-stereocorresponding points and elastic deformable meshes , 2000, Medical and Biological Engineering and Computing.

[21]  W. Skalli,et al.  Variability of the spine and pelvis location with respect to the gravity line: a three-dimensional stereoradiographic study using a force platform , 2003, Surgical and Radiologic Anatomy.

[22]  G. Bergmann,et al.  Effect of Total Disc Replacement with ProDisc on Intersegmental Rotation of the Lumbar Spine , 2005, Spine.

[23]  Jeffrey C. Wang,et al.  Adjacent segment degeneration in the lumbar spine. , 2004, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.