In Vitro Biomechanical Comparison of Four Different Ventral Surgical Procedures on the Canine Fourth-Fifth Cervical Vertebral Motion Unit

Abstract Introduction Biomechanical properties of four different ventral surgical procedures at the canine fourth-fifth cervical (C4–C5) vertebral motion unit (VMU) were assessed and compared with the intact C4–C5 VMU. Materials and Methods The third-sixth cervical vertebral column from 24 skeletally mature Beagle cadavers were randomly allocated to four groups (standard ventral slot, slanted slot, inverted cone slot and intervertebral disc fenestration). Standardized tests were performed for each specimen in flexion/extension, lateral bending and axial rotation. The specimens were tested intact and after completion of one of the three slots techniques or fenestration. Pre-testing, cadaver specimens were confirmed to be free of disease by computed tomography (CT) examination. Post-testing, dimensions of slots and fenestration were determined based on a second CT examination. Results All ventral surgical procedures increased range of motion (ROM) at the C4–C5 VMU compared with intact specimens. The only significant difference in the increase in ROM was observed between slanted slot and fenestration in flexion/extension. The standard ventral slot had a significant higher increase in ROM in extension compared with the other three techniques. The slanted slot had a significant lower increase in ROM in flexion. Discussion/Conclusion The described ventral slot techniques have similar biomechanical effects on the canine cervical vertebral column. In contrast to the findings of a previous study, the slanted slot and inverted cone slot do not appear to provide a biomechanical benefit compared with standard ventral slot.

[1]  R. Main,et al.  Effects of conventional and slanted ventral slot procedures on the biomechanical behavior of the C5-C6 vertebral motion unit in dogs. , 2016, American journal of veterinary research.

[2]  Somin Kim,et al.  Ventral Slot Decompression for Cervical Intervertebral Disc Disease in Two Dogs , 2014 .

[3]  Z. Sarsam.  Cervical Spine , 2009, British journal of neurosurgery.

[4]  S. Ferguson,et al.  Biomechanical analysis of the three-dimensional motion pattern of the canine cervical spine segment C4-C5. , 2009, Veterinary surgery : VS.

[5]  T. Burzykowski,et al.  Assessment of the usefulness of the fenestration method in cases of disc extrusion in the cervical and thoraco-lumbar spine in chondrodystrophic dogs. , 2008, Polish journal of veterinary sciences.

[6]  M. Markel,et al.  In vitro biomechanical comparison of cervical disk arthroplasty, ventral slot procedure, and smooth pins with polymethylmethacrylate fixation at treated and adjacent canine cervical motion units. , 2007, Veterinary surgery : VS.

[7]  W. McCartney.  Comparison of recovery times and complication rates between a modified slanted slot and the standard ventral slot for the treatment of cervical disc disease in 20 dogs. , 2007, The Journal of small animal practice.

[8]  G. McCabe,et al.  Effect of width of disk fenestration and a ventral slot on biomechanics of the canine C5-C6 vertebral motion unit. , 2006, American journal of veterinary research.

[9]  S. Stover,et al.  Effect of a ventral slot procedure and of smooth or positive-profile threaded pins with polymethylmethacrylate fixation on intervertebral biomechanics at treated and adjacent canine cervical vertebral motion units. , 2005, American journal of veterinary research.

[10]  S. Wheeler,et al.  Small Animal Spinal Disorders: Diagnosis and Surgery , 2005 .

[11]  J. J. Santin,et al.  Three-dimensional biomechanical properties of the human cervical spine in vitro , 1993, European Spine Journal.

[12]  T. Smit.  The use of a quadruped as an in vivo model for the study of the spine – biomechanical considerations , 2002, European Spine Journal.

[13]  J. Cholewicki,et al.  Mechanical Properties of the Human Cervical Spine as Shown by Three-Dimensional Load–Displacement Curves , 2001, Spine.

[14]  G. Hosgood,et al.  Vertebral subluxation following ventral cervical decompression in the dog. , 2000, Journal of the American Animal Hospital Association.

[15]  J. Coates,et al.  Intervertebral disk disease. , 2000, The Veterinary clinics of North America. Small animal practice.

[16]  S. Stover,et al.  Effect of disk fenestration on sagittal kinematics of the canine C5-C6 intervertebral space. , 1999, Veterinary surgery : VS.

[17]  L. Claes,et al.  Spinal segment range of motion as a function of in vitro test conditions: Effects of exposure period, accumulated cycles, angular‐deformation rate, and moisture condition , 1998, The Anatomical record.

[18]  L. Claes,et al.  Testing criteria for spinal implants: recommendations for the standardization of in vitro stability testing of spinal implants , 1998, European Spine Journal.

[19]  P. Boydell.  Horner's syndrome following cervical spinal surgery in the dog. , 1995, The Journal of small animal practice.

[20]  M M Panjabi,et al.  Mechanical behavior of the human lumbar and lumbosacral spine as shown by three-dimensional load-displacement curves. , 1994, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[21]  S. T. Simpson.  Intervertebral disc disease. , 1992, The Veterinary clinics of North America. Small animal practice.

[22]  J. Stauffer,et al.  Cardiac dysrhythmias during anesthesia for cervical decompression in the dog. , 1988, American journal of veterinary research.

[23]  G. K. Smith,et al.  Spinal decompressive procedures and dorsal compartment injuries: comparative biomechanical study in canine cadavers. , 1988, American journal of veterinary research.

[24]  H H Sherk,et al.  Biomechanical Evaluation of the Extensor Musculature of the Cervical Spine , 1988, Spine.

[25]  Y K Liu,et al.  Mechanical Properties of Lumbar Spinal Motion Segments as Affected by Partial Disc Removal , 1986, Spine.

[26]  Y. Ohkusa.  Current Techniques in Small Animal Surgery , 1986 .

[27]  D. Slatter.  Textbook of small animal surgery , 1985 .

[28]  D. Hyams,et al.  Clinical observations and client evaluation of ventral decompression for cervical intervertebral disk protrusion. , 1982, Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association.

[29]  H. Seim,et al.  Ventral decompression for the treatment of cervical disk disease in the dog: a review of 54 cases [Surgery]. , 1982 .

[30]  Gilpin Gn.  Evaluation of three techniques of ventral decompression of the cervical spinal cord in the dog. , 1976 .

[31]  G. Gilpin.  Evaluation of three techniques of ventral decompression of the cervical spinal cord in the dog. , 1976, Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association.

[32]  S. Swaim.  Ventral decompression of the cervical spinal cord in the dog. , 1974, Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association.

[33]  Lumb Wv,et al.  A dorsolateral muscle-separating approach for thoracolumbar intervertebral disk fenestration in the dog. , 1973 .

[34]  Swaim Sf.  Ventral decompression of the cervical spinal cord in the dog. , 1973 .

[35]  W. Lumb,et al.  A dorsolateral muscle-separating approach for thoracolumbar intervertebral disk fenestration in the dog. , 1973, Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association.