Comparison of Cervical Spine Biomechanics After Fixed- and Mobile-Core Artificial Disc Replacement: A Finite Element Analysis

Study Design. A biomechanical comparison between the intact C2–C7 segments and the C5–C6 segments implanted with two different constrained types (fixed and mobile core) of artificial disc replacement (ADR) using a three-dimensional nonlinear finite element (FE) model. Objective. To analyze the biomechanical changes in subaxial cervical spine after ADR and the differences between fixed- and mobile-core prostheses. Summary of Background Data. Few studies have investigated the changes in kinematics after cervical ADR, particularly in relation to the influence of constrain types. Methods. A FE model of intact C2–C7 segments was developed and validated. Fixed-core (Prodisc-C, Synthes) and mobile-core (Mobi-C, LDR Spine) artificial disc prostheses were integrated at the C5–C6 segment into the validated FE model. All models were subjected to a follower load of 50 N and a moment of 1 Nm in flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial torsion. The range of segmental motion (ROM), facet joint force, tension on major ligaments, and stress on the polyethylene (PE) cores were analyzed. Results. The ROM in the intact segments after ADR was not significantly different from those of the normal cervical spine model. The ROM in the implanted segment (C5–C6) increased during flexion (19% for fixed and 33% for mobile core), extension (48% for fixed and 56% for mobile core), lateral bending (28% for fixed and 35% for mobile core) and axial torsion (45% for fixed and 105% for mobile core). The facet joint force increased by 210% in both fixed and mobile core models during extension and the tension increased (range, 66%–166%) in all ligaments during flexion. The peak stress on a PE core was greater than the yield stress (51 MPa for fixed and 36 MPa for mobile core). Conclusion. The results of our study presented an increase in ROM, facet joint force, and ligament tension at the ADR segments. The mobile-core model showed a higher increase in segmental motion, facet force, and ligament tension, but lower stress on the PE core than the fixed-core model.

[1]  D. Maiman,et al.  Finite element modeling of the cervical spine: role of intervertebral disc under axial and eccentric loads. , 1999, Medical engineering & physics.

[2]  S. Kurtz,et al.  Total Disc Replacement Positioning Affects Facet Contact Forces and Vertebral Body Strains , 2008, Spine.

[3]  T. Tamaki,et al.  Three-Dimensional Motion Analysis of the Cervical Spine with Special Reference to the Axial Rotation , 1989, Spine.

[4]  Marc-Antoine Rousseau,et al.  Disc arthroplasty design influences intervertebral kinematics and facet forces. , 2006, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[5]  M H Aliabadi,et al.  Total hip arthroplasty wear simulation using the boundary element method. , 2007, Journal of biomechanics.

[6]  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.

[7]  L. Penning.  Normal movements of the cervical spine. , 1978, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

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

[9]  Qing Hang Zhang,et al.  Finite element analysis of moment-rotation relationships for human cervical spine. , 2006, Journal of biomechanics.

[10]  T. Zdeblick,et al.  A Quantitative Analysis of Strain at Adjacent Segments After Segmental Immobilization of the Cervical Spine , 2006, Journal of spinal disorders & techniques.

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

[12]  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.

[13]  V. Goel,et al.  Do design variations in the artificial disc influence cervical spine biomechanics? A finite element investigation , 2009, European Spine Journal.

[14]  A. Schultz,et al.  Load-displacement properties of lower cervical spine motion segments. , 1988, Journal of biomechanics.

[15]  E. Teo,et al.  Statistical factorial analysis on the material property sensitivity of the mechanical responses of the C4-C6 under compression, anterior and posterior shear. , 2004, Journal of biomechanics.

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

[17]  Bryan W Cunningham,et al.  Biomechanical Evaluation of Total Disc Replacement Arthroplasty: An In Vitro Human Cadaveric Model , 2003, Spine.

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

[19]  A. Nabhan,et al.  Disc replacement using Pro-Disc C versus fusion: a prospective randomised and controlled radiographic and clinical study , 2007, European Spine Journal.

[20]  Moe R. Lim,et al.  The Prevalence of Contraindications to Total Disc Replacement in a Cohort of Lumbar Surgical Patients , 2004 .

[21]  Jan Goffin,et al.  Intermediate Follow-up After Treatment of Degenerative Disc Disease With the Bryan Cervical Disc Prosthesis: Single-Level and Bi-Level , 2003, Spine.

[22]  N Yoganandan,et al.  Finite element modeling approaches of human cervical spine facet joint capsule. , 1998, Journal of biomechanics.

[23]  Seok-Jo Yang,et al.  Biomechanical Evaluation of Cervical Double-Door Laminoplasty Using Hydroxyapatite Spacer , 2003, 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]  Christian M. Puttlitz,et al.  Intervertebral Disc Replacement Maintains Cervical Spine Kinetics , 2004, Spine.

[26]  M M Panjabi,et al.  Cervical Spine Stabilization: A Three‐Dimensional, Biomechanical Evaluation of Rotational Stability, Strength, ami Failure Mechanisms , 1991, Spine.

[27]  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.

[28]  Shih-Hao Chen,et al.  Biomechanical comparison between lumbar disc arthroplasty and fusion. , 2009, Medical engineering & physics.

[29]  P. Anderson,et al.  Comparison of Adverse Events Between the Bryan Artificial Cervical Disc and Anterior Cervical Arthrodesis , 2008, Spine.

[30]  oji,et al.  Effects of lumbar spinal fusion on the other lumbar intervertebral levels (three-dimensional finite element analysis) , .

[31]  V. Goel,et al.  Prediction of Load Sharing Among Spinal Components of a C5‐C6 Motion Segment Using the Finite Element Approach , 1998, Spine.

[32]  Rick C Sasso,et al.  Cervical Kinematics After Fusion and Bryan Disc Arthroplasty , 2008, Journal of spinal disorders & techniques.

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

[34]  V. Goel,et al.  Uncinate processes and Luschka joints influence the biomechanics of the cervical spine: Quantification using a finite element model of the C5‐C6 segment , 1997, Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society.

[35]  T. Tamaki,et al.  Three-dimensional motion of the upper cervical spine in rheumatoid arthritis. , 1994, Spine.

[36]  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.

[37]  L. Pruitt,et al.  How do material properties influence wear and fracture mechanisms? , 2008, The Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.

[38]  B. Cunningham,et al.  General Principles of Total Disc Replacement Arthroplasty: Seventeen Cases in a Nonhuman Primate Model , 2003, Spine.

[39]  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.

[40]  A. Hilibrand,et al.  Adjacent segment degeneration and adjacent segment disease: the consequences of spinal fusion? , 2004, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[41]  G. Bergmann,et al.  Effect of Total Disc Replacement with ProDisc on Intersegmental Rotation of the Lumbar Spine , 2005, Spine.

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

[43]  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.

[44]  L Penning,et al.  Rotation of the Cervical Spine: A CT Study in Normal Subjects , 1987, Spine.

[45]  Andrew Holmes,et al.  The Range and Nature of Flexion‐Extension Motion in the Cervical Spine , 1994, Spine.

[46]  M M Panjabi,et al.  Three‐dimensional load‐displacement curves due to froces on the cervical spine , 1986, Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society.

[47]  D. DiAngelo,et al.  A Biomechanical Study of Artificial Cervical Discs Using Computer Simulation , 2008, Spine.

[48]  F. Geisler,et al.  Comparison of Biomechanical Function at Ideal and Varied Surgical Placement for Two Lumbar Artificial Disc Implant Designs: Mobile-Core Versus Fixed-Core , 2007, Spine.

[49]  Joseph D. Smucker,et al.  Artificial Disc Versus Fusion: A Prospective, Randomized Study With 2-Year Follow-up on 99 Patients , 2007, Spine.

[50]  H. Ng,et al.  Biomechanical Effects of C2–C7 Intersegmental Stability due to Laminectomy With Unilateral and Bilateral Facetectomy , 2004, Spine.