The influence of the axial, antero-posterior and lateral positions of the center of rotation of a ball-and-socket disc prosthesis on the cervical spine biomechanics.

BACKGROUND Previous studies documented the importance of the positioning and the design parameters of the prosthesis in determining the biomechanics of the implanted spine. However, a comprehensive biomechanical evaluation of the significance of these parameters is still lacking. Therefore, the paper is aimed to the quantification of their influence on the flexibility of the implanted spine and the force transmitted through the facet joints. METHODS A finite element model of the C5-C6 spine unit including a ball-and-socket disc prosthesis was built. Three probabilistic variables were considered: the axial, antero-posterior and lateral positions of the center of rotation. Randomized input parameters were generated with the Monte Carlo method. Pure moments of 1.6 Nm in flexion, extension, lateral bending and axial rotation were imposed to the upper endplate of C5; 100 simulations were conducted for the each of the considered loading conditions. FINDINGS Axial position of the center of rotation influenced the spine flexibility in all loading conditions and the facet force in extension, lateral bending and axial rotation. The antero-posterior position was found to influence the spine flexibility in flexion and extension, and the facet force in lateral bending and axial rotation. The lateral position was not significant. INTERPRETATION The effects of the positioning of a cervical disc prosthesis were estimated. A wide range of mechanical behaviors can be obtained by the manufacturers by appropriately manipulating the position of the center of rotation. A proper positioning of the artificial disc during the surgery, in particular in the antero-posterior direction, was found to be of critical importance.

[1]  Kevin T Foley,et al.  An improved biomechanical testing protocol for evaluating spinal arthroplasty and motion preservation devices in a multilevel human cadaveric cervical model. , 2004, Neurosurgical focus.

[2]  R. Assietti,et al.  Biomechanics of the C5-C6 Spinal Unit Before and After Placement of a disc prosthesis , 2006, Biomechanics and modeling in mechanobiology.

[3]  P. Anderson,et al.  Motion Analysis of Bryan Cervical Disc Arthroplasty Versus Anterior Discectomy and Fusion: Results From a Prospective, Randomized, Multicenter, Clinical Trial , 2008, Journal of spinal disorders & techniques.

[4]  A. Patwardhan,et al.  Effect of Uncovertebral Joint Excision on the Motion Response of the Cervical Spine After Total Disc Replacement , 2007, Spine.

[5]  G. Pickett,et al.  Kinematic Analysis of the Cervical Spine Following Implantation of an Artificial Cervical Disc , 2005, Spine.

[6]  Fabio Galbusera,et al.  Cervical spine biomechanics following implantation of a disc prosthesis. , 2008, Medical engineering & physics.

[7]  T. Wright,et al.  Biomechanics of nonfusion implants. , 2005, The Orthopedic clinics of North America.

[8]  Marc-Antoine Rousseau,et al.  Influence of the Geometry of a Ball-and-Socket Intervertebral Prosthesis at the Cervical Spine: A Finite Element Study , 2008, Spine.

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

[10]  Narayan Yoganandan,et al.  Experimental flexion/extension data corridors for validation of finite element models of the young, normal cervical spine. , 2006, Journal of biomechanics.

[11]  P. McAfee The indications for lumbar and cervical disc replacement. , 2004, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[12]  D. Resnick,et al.  CERVICAL DISC ARTHROPLASTY COMPARED WITH FUSION IN A WORKERS' COMPENSATION POPULATION , 2008, Neurosurgery.

[13]  W. Skalli,et al.  In Vivo Kinematics of Two Types of Ball-and-Socket Cervical Disc Replacements in the Sagittal Plane: Cranial Versus Caudal Geometric Center , 2008, Spine.

[14]  Jung Song,et al.  In vitro biomechanics of cervical disc arthroplasty with the ProDisc-C total disc implant. , 2004, Neurosurgical focus.

[15]  N. Rainov,et al.  Intervertebral disc replacement for cervical degenerative disease – clinical results and functional outcome at two years in patients implanted with the Bryan® cervical disc prosthesis , 2008, Acta Neurochirurgica.

[16]  Daniel H. Kim,et al.  Range of motion change after cervical arthroplasty with ProDisc-C and prestige artificial discs compared with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. , 2007, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[17]  Sung Kyu Ha,et al.  Finite element modeling of multi-level cervical spinal segments (C3-C6) and biomechanical analysis of an elastomer-type prosthetic disc. , 2006, Medical engineering & physics.

[18]  Antonius Rohlmann,et al.  Effect of an artificial disc on lumbar spine biomechanics: a probabilistic finite element study , 2008, European Spine Journal.

[19]  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.