Design and evaluation of the FlexiCore metal-on-metal intervertebral disc prosthesis.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT The technical difficulties associated with the development of an intervertebral disc prosthesis include endurance demands on the device, lack of consensus concerning the biomechanical principles governing the articulation of the spinal joint and the performance of materials available for implantation. PURPOSE Although biologically based disc prostheses and augmentations may be the endpoint of spinal disc replacements, these devices and associated technologies will still require decades of work in order to achieve fruition. The more immediate solution will require a durable, biocompatible device capable of restoring range of motion. The evaluation of such a device must include failure testing of critical components as well as a series of fatigue experiments under overloaded conditions. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING Recent literature citing adjacent level degeneration associated with segmental mobilization and a lack of correlation between successful fusion and clinical success has prompted the need for a dynamic intervertebral disc prosthesis. METHODS Combined with a better understanding of the biomechanics and the prospect of an increasing percentage of more elderly patients, the future of spinal fusion for pain and instability may need to be reexamined. The authors propose a novel metal-on-metal design for an intervertebral device that features a fixed center of rotation, a mechanical torsional limit, a unique feature to allow for the location of the device in a patient-specific manner, and means by which the device may be implanted directly anterior or anterolaterally. RESULTS Physiological ranges of motion are retained by the prosthesis. In addition, initial and long-term fixations are achieved through spines and bone ingrowth coating. The device comprises a retained ball and socket positioned between two baseplates. The ball and socket joint permits articulation through the appropriate physiological range of motion and center of rotation as the baseplates provide a stable platform for implantation. CONCLUSIONS An intervertebral disc prosthesis has been designed and has demonstrated mechanical performance beyond what is required physiologically under preliminary testing.

[1]  C. Fisher,et al.  The effects of bone density and disc degeneration on the structural property distributions in the lower lumbar vertebral endplates , 2002, Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society.

[2]  R. Fraser,et al.  Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Minimum 10‐Year Follow‐Up , 1997 .

[3]  W. Lo,et al.  Stress analysis of the disc adjacent to interbody fusion in lumbar spine. , 2001, Medical engineering & physics.

[4]  Jack R. Worrall,et al.  Metal wear particle characterization from metal on metal total hip replacements: transmission electron microscopy study of periprosthetic tissues and isolated particles. , 1998, Journal of biomedical materials research.

[5]  M. Aebi,et al.  A biological approach to treating disc degeneration: not for today, but maybe for tomorrow , 2002, European Spine Journal.

[6]  A. Valdevit,et al.  Isolation and characterization of metallic wear debris from a dynamic intervertebral disc prosthesis. , 1994, Journal of biomedical materials research.

[7]  Thomas R. Oxland,et al.  Mapping the Structural Properties of the Lumbosacral Vertebral Endplates , 2001, Spine.

[8]  V. Devlin,et al.  Instantaneous Axis of Rotation as a Function of the Three Columns of the Spine , 1992, Spine.

[9]  L. Dorr,et al.  Histologic, biochemical, and ion analysis of tissue and fluids retrieved during total hip arthroplasty. , 1990, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[10]  M J Pearcy,et al.  Instantaneous Axes of Rotation of the Lumbar Intervertebral Joints , 1988, Spine.

[11]  A K Burton,et al.  Continuous measurement of lumbar posture using flexible electrogoniometers. , 1994, Ergonomics.

[12]  E. Hanley,et al.  Lumbar Intervertebral Disc Transfer A Canine Study , 1994, Spine.

[13]  D. Ohnmeiss,et al.  Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion , 1988, Spine.

[14]  C. Fisher,et al.  Effects of Endplate Removal on the Structural Properties of the Lower Lumbar Vertebral Bodies , 2003, Spine.

[15]  Manohar M. Panjabi,et al.  Clinical Biomechanics of the Spine , 1978 .

[16]  M. Panjabi,et al.  An Analysis of Errors in Kinematic Parameters Associated with in Vivo Functional Radiographs , 1992, Spine.

[17]  N. Bogduk,et al.  A Biological Basis for Instantaneous Centres of Rotation of the Vertebral Column , 1995, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Part H, Journal of engineering in medicine.