Biomechanical Analysis of the Range of Motion After Placement of a Two-Level Cervical ProDisc-C Versus Hybrid Construct

Study Design. The study design was that of an in vitro human cadaveric biomechanical analysis. Objectives. The objective of this study was the biomechanical analysis of the range of motion (ROM) of a 2-level intact spine control versus total, then operative- and adjacent-segment ROM after (1) 2-level ProDisc-C placement (PP), (2) anterior cervical discectomy and fusions (ACDFs), and (3) hybrid constructs of both. Follower load and multidirectional testing were performed in each instance. Summary of Background Data. With in vivo cervical arthroplasties gaining in popularity, limited biomechanical data are available, which highlight changes in the adjacent-level biomechanics after multilevel procedures. Methods. Biomechanical testing for ROM was performed using 7 cadaveric C4–T1 spine specimens. Moments up to 2 Nm with a 100 N follower load were applied in flexion/extension (F/E), right and left lateral bending (LB), and right and left axial rotation (AR). Specimens were tested in the intact state and then with a combination of ProDisc-C arthroplasty and ACDF at C5–C6 and C6–C7. Results. In the 2-level PP group, the increase in ROM in F/E, LB, and AR of C4–T1 occurs due to an increased ROM at the operative level. The ROM of the level adjacent to the operative levels showed no significant change, except at C4–C5 in LB. For the latter level, the ROM of C4–C5 in each direction showed increases for each parameter. In the 2-level fusion C5–C6 and C6–C7 fusion (FF) group, the ROM in F/E, LB, and AR of C4–T1 was decreased because of a decrease in ROM primarily at the fused levels, and the ROM of adjacent levels was increased. In the ProDisc-C/Fusion (PF) and Fusion/ProDisc-C (FP) groups undergoing placements of a 1-level ProDisc-C/1-level fusion with cage and plate, both groups showed no significant ROM change of C4–T1 when compared with the control and no significant change at adjacent levels, with the exception of C4–C5 in LB. Conclusion. (1) Two-level ACDFs decrease whereas 2-level PPs increase the entire C4–T1 ROM. (2) ACDF/ProDisc-C hybrid operations do not alter the C4–T1 ROM. (3) For the ACDF/ProDisc-C hybrid operative groups, the combined ROM of the operative levels showed no significant difference when compared with that of the intact spine. (4) Regarding adjacent-level ROM, a 2-level ACDF increases ROM, but 2-level ProDisc-C and hybrid ACDF/PPs do not show significant change except for LB at C4–C5. (5) When the segmental distribution of C4–T1 ROM is plotted as the percentage of total motion, it demonstrates that for PF and FP groups, the combined ROM of the C5–C6 and C6–C7 operative levels are similar to that of the intact spine in EF and LB. For the PP group, the combined ROM of the operative levels increased, whereas the combined ROM for the FF group is decreased. The decrease or increase of the adjacent C4–C5 or C7–T1 level ROM compensates for the operative levels.

[1]  S. Sepic,et al.  Anterior Discectomy and Fusion for Painful Cervical Disc Disease: A Report of 50 Patients With an Average Follow‐up of 21 Years , 1998, Spine.

[2]  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.

[3]  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.

[4]  D T Davy,et al.  A Kinematic Study of the Cervical Spine Before and After Segmental Arthrodesis , 1998, Spine.

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

[6]  P A Cripton,et al.  A minimally disruptive technique for measuring intervertebral disc pressure in vitro: application to the cervical spine. , 2001, Journal of biomechanics.

[7]  B. Cunningham,et al.  Biomechanical Evaluation of a Posterolateral Lumbar Disc Arthroplasty Device: An In Vitro Human Cadaveric Model , 2010, Spine.

[8]  T. Kershaw,et al.  Early results after ProDisc-C cervical disc replacement. , 2005, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[9]  Raj D. Rao,et al.  Does Anterior Plating of the Cervical Spine Predispose to Adjacent Segment Changes? , 2005, Spine.

[10]  Ilana Langdon,et al.  Influence of an artificial cervical joint compared with fusion on adjacent-level motion in the treatment of degenerative cervical disc disease. , 2002, Journal of neurosurgery.

[11]  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.

[12]  S. Emery,et al.  Robinson anterior cervical discectomy and arthrodesis for cervical radiculopathy. Long-term follow-up of one hundred and twenty-two patients. , 1993, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[13]  Manabu Ito,et al.  Multidirectional flexibility analysis of cervical artificial disc reconstruction: in vitro human cadaveric spine model. , 2005, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[14]  Hideki Yoshikawa,et al.  Kinematics of the Subaxial Cervical Spine in Rotation In Vivo Three-Dimensional Analysis , 2004, Spine.

[15]  W. Edwards,et al.  Cervical flexion, extension, protrusion, and retraction. A radiographic segmental analysis. , 1999, Spine.

[16]  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.

[17]  Jan Goffin,et al.  Long-Term Follow-Up After Interbody Fusion of the Cervical Spine , 2004, Journal of spinal disorders & techniques.

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

[19]  H. Baba,et al.  Late radiographic findings after anterior cervical fusion for spondylotic myeloradiculopathy. , 1993, Spine.

[20]  W. Scoville.  Types of cervical disk lesions and their surgical approaches. , 1966, JAMA.

[21]  R. Robinson,et al.  The treatment of certain cervical-spine disorders by anterior removal of the intervertebral disc and interbody fusion. , 1958, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[22]  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.

[23]  S B Sepic,et al.  Anterior Cervical Fusion for Degenerated or Protruded Discs: A Review of One Hundred Forty-Six Patients , 1984, Spine.

[24]  F. Porchet,et al.  Clinical outcomes with the Prestige II cervical disc: preliminary results from a prospective randomized clinical trial. , 2004, Neurosurgical focus.

[25]  G. Pickett,et al.  Early clinical and biomechanical results following cervical arthroplasty. , 2004, Neurosurgical focus.

[26]  F. Benazzo,et al.  Degenerative arthritis of the adjacent spinal joints following anterior cervical spinal fusion: clinicoradiologic and statistical correlations. , 1990, Italian journal of orthopaedics and traumatology.

[27]  K. Nakanishi,et al.  Strain on intervertebral discs after anterior cervical decompression and fusion. , 1999, Spine.

[28]  R. Waters,et al.  Surgical stabilization of the cervical spine. A comparative analysis of anterior and posterior spine fusions. , 1985, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[29]  J. C. Simmons,et al.  Surgical treatment of laterally ruptured cervical disc. Review of 648 cases, 1939 to 1972. , 1973, Journal of neurosurgery.

[30]  Tae-Hong Lim,et al.  Biomechanical Study on the Effect of Cervical Spine Fusion on Adjacent-Level Intradiscal Pressure and Segmental Motion , 2002, Spine.

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

[32]  A. Nordwall,et al.  Normal range of motion of the cervical spine. , 1989, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[33]  Manohar M. Panjabi,et al.  A Method to Simulate In Vivo Cervical Spine Kinematics Using In Vitro Compressive Preload , 2002, Spine.

[34]  W. Steudel,et al.  The ProDisc-C Prothesis: Clinical and Radiological Experience 1 Year After Surgery , 2007, Spine.

[35]  J. Robertson,et al.  The New Frenchay Artificial Cervical Joint: Results From a Two-Year Pilot Study , 2002, Spine.

[36]  Christian M. Puttlitz,et al.  Intervertebral Disc Replacement Maintains Cervical Spine Kinetics , 2004, Spine.

[37]  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.