Biomechanics of Hybrid Anterior Cervical Fusion and Artificial Disc Replacement in 3-Level Constructs: An In Vitro Investigation

Background The ideal surgical approach for cervical disk disease remains controversial, especially for multilevel cervical disease. The purpose of this study was to investigate the biomechanics of the cervical spine after 3-level hybrid surgery compared with 3-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). Material/Methods Eighteen human cadaveric spines (C2-T1) were evaluated under displacement-input protocol. After intact testing, a simulated hybrid construct or fusion construct was created between C3 to C6 and tested in the following 3 conditions: 3-level disc plate disc (3DPD), 3-level plate disc plate (3PDP), and 3-level plate (3P). Results Compared to intact, almost 65~80% of motion was successfully restricted at C3-C6 fusion levels (p<0.05). 3DPD construct resulted in slight increase at the 3 instrumented levels (p>0.05). 3PDP construct resulted in significant decrease of ROM at C3-C6 levels less than 3P (p<0.05). Both 3DPD and 3PDP caused significant reduction of ROM at the arthrodesis level and produced motion increase at the arthroplasty level. For adjacent levels, 3P resulted in markedly increased contribution of both upper and lower adjacent levels (p<0.05). Significant motion increases lower than 3P were only noted at partly adjacent levels in some conditions for 3DPD and 3PDP (p<0.05). Conclusions ACDF eliminated motion within the construct and greatly increased adjacent motion. Artificial cervical disc replacement normalized motion of its segment and adjacent segments. While hybrid conditions failed to restore normal motion within the construct, they significantly normalized motion in adjacent segments compared with the 3-level ACDF condition. The artificial disc in 3-level constructs has biomechanical advantages compared to fusion in normalizing motion.

[1]  Zhenyu Liu,et al.  Comparison of Hybrid Constructs with 2-Level Artificial Disc Replacement and 2-Level Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion for Surgical Reconstruction of the Cervical Spine: A Kinematic Study in Whole Cadavers , 2015, Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research.

[2]  Zhiwei Jia,et al.  Fusion-Nonfusion Hybrid Construct Versus Anterior Cervical Hybrid Decompression and Fusion: A Comparative Study for 3-Level Cervical Degenerative Disc Diseases , 2014, Spine.

[3]  Qing He,et al.  Hybrid surgery for multilevel cervical degenerative disc diseases: a systematic review of biomechanical and clinical evidence , 2014, European Spine Journal.

[4]  Tsung-Hsi Tu,et al.  Differences between arthroplasty and anterior cervical fusion in two-level cervical degenerative disc disease , 2014, European Spine Journal.

[5]  N. Duggal,et al.  Long-term kinematic analysis of cervical spine after single-level implantation of Bryan cervical disc prosthesis. , 2013, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[6]  H. Herkowitz,et al.  Cervical intervertebral disc replacement. , 2013, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[7]  Ashok Biyani,et al.  Adjacent level effects of bi level disc replacement, bi level fusion and disc replacement plus fusion in cervical spine--a finite element based study. , 2012, Clinical biomechanics.

[8]  Wafa Skalli,et al.  Cervical disc prosthesis versus arthrodesis using one-level, hybrid and two-level constructs: an in vitro investigation , 2012, European Spine Journal.

[9]  W. Sukovich,et al.  Adjacent-level biomechanics after single versus multilevel cervical spine fusion. , 2012, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[10]  J. Dettori,et al.  Cervical artificial disc replacement versus fusion in the cervical spine: a systematic review comparing multilevel versus single-level surgery , 2012, Evidence-Based Spine-Care Journal EBSJ Focus Issue: Cervical Artificial Disc Replacement.

[11]  Avinash G Patwardhan,et al.  Disc Replacement Adjacent to Cervical Fusion: A Biomechanical Comparison of Hybrid Construct Versus Two-Level Fusion , 2011, Spine.

[12]  A. Patwardhan,et al.  Kinematics of Cervical Total Disc Replacement Adjacent to a Two-Level, Straight Versus Lordotic Fusion , 2011, Spine.

[13]  I. Zechmeister,et al.  Artificial total disc replacement versus fusion for the cervical spine: a systematic review , 2011, European Spine Journal.

[14]  Jesse T. Lim,et al.  Biomechanical Analysis of the Range of Motion After Placement of a Two-Level Cervical ProDisc-C Versus Hybrid Construct , 2010, Spine.

[15]  Zhenhua Liao,et al.  In vitro evaluation of stiffness and load sharing in a two-level corpectomy: comparison of static and dynamic cervical plates. , 2010, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[16]  Mario J. Cardoso,et al.  Multilevel cervical arthroplasty with artificial disc replacement. , 2010, Neurosurgical focus.

[17]  Bryan W Cunningham,et al.  Biomechanical comparison of single- and two-level cervical arthroplasty versus arthrodesis: effect on adjacent-level spinal kinematics. , 2010, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[18]  S. Yi,et al.  Artificial Disc Replacement Combined With Fusion Versus Two-Level Fusion in Cervical Two-Level Disc Disease , 2009, Spine.

[19]  P. Foti,et al.  Early results and review of the literature of a novel hybrid surgical technique combining cervical arthrodesis and disc arthroplasty for treating multilevel degenerative disc disease: opposite or complementary techniques? , 2009, European Spine Journal.

[20]  Regis W Haid,et al.  Clinical and radiographic analysis of cervical disc arthroplasty compared with allograft fusion: a randomized controlled clinical trial. , 2007, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

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

[22]  Denis J. DiAngelo,et al.  Motion Compensation Associated With Single-Level Cervical Fusion: Where Does the Lost Motion Go? , 2006, Spine.

[23]  T. H. Jansen,et al.  The in vitro effects of instrumentation on multilevel cervical strut-graft mechanics. , 1999, Spine.

[24]  A. Hilibrand,et al.  Radiculopathy and myelopathy at segments adjacent to the site of a previous anterior cervical arthrodesis. , 1999, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[25]  F. Fujiyoshi,et al.  Subtotal Vertebrectomy and Spinal Fusion for Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy , 1986, Spine.

[26]  D. Lin,et al.  Artificial disk replacement combined with midlevel ACDF versus multilevel fusion for cervical disk disease involving 3 levels. , 2013, Orthopedics.

[27]  H. Hey,et al.  Is hybrid surgery of the cervical spine a good balance between fusion and arthroplasty? Pilot results from a single surgeon series , 2012, European Spine Journal.

[28]  M. Swank,et al.  Anterior cervical allograft arthrodesis and instrumentation: Multilevel interbody grafting or strut graft reconstruction , 2005, European Spine Journal.