Effects of neck movements on stability and subsidence in cervical interbody fusion: an in vitro study.

OBJECT The aim of this in vitro study was to determine the influence of simulated postoperative neck movements on the stabilizing effect and subsidence of four different anterior cervical interbody fusion devices. Emphasis was placed on the relation between subsidence and spinal stability. METHODS The flexibility of 24 human cervical spine specimens was tested before and directly after being stabilized with a WING, BAK/C, AcroMed I/F cage, or with bone cement in standard flexibility tests under 50 N axial preload. Thereafter, 700 pure moment loading cycles (+/- 2 Nm) were applied in randomized directions to simulate physiological neck movements. Additional flexibility tests in combination with measurements of the subsidence depth were conducted after 50, 100, 200, 300, 500, and 700 loading cycles. In all four groups, simulated postoperative neck movements caused an increase of the range of motion (ROM) ranging from 0.4 to 3.1 degrees and of the neutral zone from 0.1 to 4.2 degrees. This increase in flexibility was most distinct in extension followed by flexion, lateral bending, and axial rotation. After cyclic loading, ROM tended to be lower in the group fitted with AcroMed cages (3.3 degrees in right lateral bending, 3.5 degrees in left axial rotation, 7.8 degrees in flexion, 8.3 degrees in extension) and in the group in which bone cement was applied (5.4 degrees, 2.5 degrees, 7.4 degrees, and 8.8 degrees, respectively) than in those fixed with the WING (6.3 degrees, 5.4 degrees, 9.7 degrees, and 6.9 degrees, respectively) and BAK cages (6.2 degrees, 4.5 degrees, 10.2 degrees, and 11.6 degrees, respectively). CONCLUSIONS Simulated repeated neck movements not only caused an increase of the flexibility but also subsidence of the implants into the adjacent vertebrae. The relation between flexibility increase and subsidence seemed to depend on the implant design: subsiding BAK/C cages partially supported stability whereas subsiding WING cages and AcroMed cages did not.

[1]  L. Claes,et al.  Subsidence Resulting From Simulated Postoperative Neck Movements: An In Vitro Investigation With a New Cervical Fusion Cage , 2000, Spine.

[2]  L. Claes,et al.  Primary stabilizing effect of interbody fusion devices for the cervical spine: an in vitro comparison between three different cage types and bone cement , 2000, European Spine Journal.

[3]  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.

[4]  J E Lemons,et al.  Intervertebral spacer as an adjunct to anterior lumbar fusion. Part I. Design, fabrication, and testing of three prototypes. , 1998, Journal of spinal disorders.

[5]  M. Markel,et al.  Cervical Interbody Fusion Cages: An Animal Model With and Without Bone Morphogenetic Protein , 1998, Spine.

[6]  T Kirino,et al.  Bisegmental cervical interbody fusion using hydroxyapatite implants: surgical results and long-term observation in 70 cases. , 1998, Journal of neurosurgery.

[7]  G. Matgé.  Anterior Interbody Fusion with the BAK-Cage in Cervical Spondylosis , 1998, Acta Neurochirurgica.

[8]  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.

[9]  N S Brooke,et al.  Preliminary experience of carbon fibre cage prostheses for treatment of cervical spine disorders. , 1997, British journal of neurosurgery.

[10]  H. Crockard,et al.  Biocompatible Osteoconductive Polymer Versus Iliac Graft: A Prospective Comparative Study for the Evaluation of Fusion Pattern After Anterior Cervical Discectomy , 1996, Spine.

[11]  H. An,et al.  Evaluation of Porous Biphasic Calcium Phosphate Ceramics for Anterior Cervical Interbody Fusion in a Caprine Model , 1995, Spine.

[12]  K. Fathie.  Anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion with methyl methacrylate. , 1994, The Mount Sinai journal of medicine, New York.

[13]  W. Watters,et al.  ▪ Anterior Cervical Discectomy With and Without Fusion: Results, Complications, and Long‐term Follow‐up , 1994, Spine.

[14]  B. Cunningham,et al.  A biomechanical analysis of decompression and reconstruction methods in the cervical spine. Emphasis on a carbon-fiber-composite cage. , 1993, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[15]  M M Panjabi,et al.  Biomechanical Evaluation of Spinal Fixation Devices: I. A Conceptual Framework , 1988, Spine.

[16]  G. Bagby.  Arthrodesis by the distraction-compression method using a stainless steel implant. , 1988, Orthopedics.

[17]  J. M. Lee,et al.  Observations on the Effect of Movement on Bone Ingrowth into Porous‐Surfaced Implants , 1986, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[18]  M. Panjabi,et al.  Biomechanical time‐tolerance of fresh cadaveric human spine specimens , 1985, Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society.

[19]  J. Keller,et al.  Anterior cervical discectomy and interbody fusion. An experimental study using a synthetic tricalcium phosphate. , 1979, Journal of neurosurgery.

[20]  M M Panjabi,et al.  Effects of preload on load displacement curves of the lumbar spine. , 1977, The Orthopedic clinics of North America.

[21]  M. Brown,et al.  A roentgenographic evaluation of frozen allografts versus autografts in anterior cervical spine fusions. , 1976, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.