Advertisement

Morphometry evaluations of cervical osseous endplates based on three dimensional reconstructions

  • Hang Feng
  • Haoxi Li
  • Zhaoyu Ba
  • Zhaoxiong Chen
  • Xinhua Li
  • Desheng Wu
Original Paper
  • 49 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

Accurate and comprehensive data on cervical endplates is essential for developing and improving cervical devices. However, current literature on vertebral disc geometry is scarce or not suitable. The aim of this study was to obtain quantitative parameters of cervical endplates and provide morphometric references for designing cervical devices.

Methods

In this study, 19 human cervical spine cadaveric specimens were considered. Employing a reverse engineering system, the surface information of each endplate was recorded in digital cloud and then 3D reconstructed. A measurement protocol that included three sagittal and three frontal surface curves was developed. The information of surface curves and endplate concavity were obtained and analyzed. The parametric equations of endplate surfaces were deduced based on coordinates of landmarks, and the reliability was verified.

Results

The cervical endplate surface had a trend that to be transversely elongated gradually. The concavity depths of inferior endplates (1.88 to 2.13 mm) were significantly larger than those of superior endplates (0.62 to 0.84 mm). The most-concave points in inferior endplates were concentrated in the central portion, while always located in post-median region in superior endplates.

Conclusion

These results will give appropriate guidelines to design cervical prostheses without sacrificing valuable bone stock. The parametric equations applied for generating surface profile of cervical endplates may provide great convenience for subsequent studies.

Keywords

Morphology Cervical vertebra endplates Cervical prostheses Anatomy 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Supplementary material

264_2018_4053_MOESM1_ESM.docx (747 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 747 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Dong L, Tan MS, Yan QH, Yi P, Yang F, Tang XS, Hao QY (2015) Footprint mismatch of cervical disc prostheses with Chinese cervical anatomic dimensions. Chin Med J 128(2):197–202.  https://doi.org/10.4103/0366-6999.149200 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gstoettner M, Heider D, Liebensteiner M, Bach CM (2008) Footprint mismatch in lumbar total disc arthroplasty. Eur Spine J 17(11):1470–1475.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-008-0780-0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Thaler M, Hartmann S, Gstottner M, Lechner R, Gabl M, Bach C (2013) Footprint mismatch in total cervical disc arthroplasty. Eur Spine J 22(4):759–765.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-012-2594-3 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    de Beer N, Scheffer C (2012) Reducing subsidence risk by using rapid manufactured patient-specific intervertebral disc implants. Spine J 12(11):1060–1066.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2012.10.003 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zhu YH, Cheng KL, Zhong Z, Li YQ, Zhu QS (2016) Morphologic evaluation of Chinese cervical endplate and uncinate process by three-dimensional computed tomography reconstructions for helping design cervical disc prosthesis. J Chin Med Assoc 79(9):500–506.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcma.2016.04.003 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chen H, Zhong J, Tan J, Wu D, Jiang D (2013) Sagittal geometry of the middle and lower cervical endplates. Europ Spine J 22(7):1570–1575.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-013-2791-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pitzen T, Schmitz B, Georg T, Barbier D, Beuter T, Steudel WI, Reith W (2004) Variation of endplate thickness in the cervical spine. Eur Spine J 13(3):235–240.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-003-0648-2 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lin CY, Kang H, Rouleau JP, Hollister SJ, Marca FL (2009) Stress analysis of the interface between cervical vertebrae end plates and the Bryan, Prestige LP, and ProDisc-C cervical disc prostheses: an in vivo image-based finite element study. Spine 34(15):1554–1560.  https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181aa643b CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Steffen T, Tsantrizos A, Aebi M (2000) Effect of implant design and endplate preparation on the compressive strength of interbody fusion constructs. Spine 25(9):1077–1084CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kim MK, Kwak DS, Park CK, Park SH, Oh SM, Lee SW, Han SH (2007) Quantitative anatomy of the endplate of the middle and lower cervical vertebrae in Koreans. Spine 32(14):E376–E381.  https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e318067e384 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Panjabi MM, Duranceau J, Goel V, Oxland T, Takata K (1991) Cervical human vertebrae. Quantitative three-dimensional anatomy of the middle and lower regions. Spine 16(8):861–869CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tan SH, Teo EC, Chua HC (2004) Quantitative three-dimensional anatomy of cervical, thoracic and lumbar vertebrae of Chinese Singaporeans. Eur Spine J 13(2):137–146.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-003-0586-z CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tang R, Gungor C, Sesek RF, Foreman KB, Gallagher S, Davis GA (2016) Morphometry of the lower lumbar intervertebral discs and endplates: comparative analyses of new MRI data with previous findings. Eur Spine J 25(12):4116–4131.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4405-8 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Panjabi MM, Chen NC, Shin EK, Wang JL (2001) The cortical shell architecture of human cervical vertebral bodies. Spine 26(22):2478–2484CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ravi B, Rampersaud R (2008) Clinical magnification error in lateral spinal digital radiographs. Spine 33(10):E311–E316.  https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31816f6c3f CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Silva MJ, Wang C, Keaveny TM, Hayes WC (1994) Direct and computed tomography thickness measurements of the human, lumbar vertebral shell and endplate. Bone 15(4):409–414CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Langrana NA, Kale SP, Edwards WT, Lee CK, Kopacz KJ (2006) Measurement and analyses of the effects of adjacent end plate curvatures on vertebral stresses. Spine J 6(3):267–278.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2005.09.008 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Shrout PE, Fleiss JL (1979) Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull 86(2):420–428CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bland JM, Altman DG (1997) Cronbach’s alpha. BMJ (Clinical research ed) 314(7080):572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mende KC, Eicker SO, Weber F (2017) Cage deviation in the subaxial cervical spine in relation to implant position in the sagittal plane. Neurosurg Rev.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10143-017-0850-z
  21. 21.
    Link HD, McAfee PC, Pimenta L (2004) Choosing a cervical disc replacement. Spine J 4(6 Suppl):294s–302s.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2004.07.022 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Auerbach JD, Ballester CM, Hammond F, Carine ET, Balderston RA, Elliott DM (2010) The effect of implant size and device keel on vertebral compression properties in lumbar total disc replacement. Spine J 10(4):333–340.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2010.01.008 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Truumees E, Demetropoulos CK, Yang KH, Herkowitz HN (2003) Failure of human cervical endplates: a cadaveric experimental model. Spine 28(19):2204–2208.  https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000084881.11695.50 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cheng CC, Ordway NR, Zhang X, Lu YM, Fang H, Fayyazi AH (2007) Loss of cervical endplate integrity following minimal surface preparation. Spine 32(17):1852–1855.  https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31811ece5a CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nagaraja S, Palepu V, Peck JH, Helgeson MD (2015) Impact of screw location and endplate preparation on pullout strength for anterior plates and integrated fixation cages. Spine J 15(11):2425–2432.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2015.07.454 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Dmitriev AE, Cunningham BW, Hu N, Sell G, Vigna F, McAfee PC (2005) Adjacent level intradiscal pressure and segmental kinematics following a cervical total disc arthroplasty: an in vitro human cadaveric model. Spine 30(10):1165–1172CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rousseau MA, Bradford DS, Hadi TM, Pedersen KL, Lotz JC (2006) The instant axis of rotation influences facet forces at L5/S1 during flexion/extension and lateral bending. Eur Spine J 15(3):299–307.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-005-0935-1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Cao JM, Zhang YZ, Shen Y, Xu JX, Ding WY, Yang DL, Zhang D (2011) Clinical and radiological outcomes of modified techniques in Bryan cervical disc arthroplasty. J Clin Neurosci 18(10):1308–1312.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocn.2011.01.034 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Landham PR, Don AS, Robertson PA (2017) Do position and size matter? An analysis of cage and placement variables for optimum lordosis in PLIF reconstruction. Eur Spine J 26(11):2843–2850.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-017-5170-z CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Muller-Gerbl M, Weisser S, Linsenmeier U (2008) The distribution of mineral density in the cervical vertebral endplates. Eur Spine J 17(3):432–438.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-008-0601-5 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© SICOT aisbl 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Spinal Surgery, Shanghai East HospitalTongji University School of MedicineShanghaiChina

Personalised recommendations