Advertisement

Design and preliminary biomechanical analysis of a novel motion preservation device for lumbar spinal disease after vertebral corpectomy

  • Jiantao Liu
  • Xijing He
  • Zhengchao Gao
  • Binbin Niu
  • Dongbo Lv
  • Yanzheng GaoEmail author
Orthopaedic Surgery

Abstract

Objective

To design a novel prosthesis, a movable artificial lumbar complex (MALC), for non-fusion reconstruction after lumbar subtotal corpectomy and to evaluate the stability, range of motion and load-bearing strength in the human cadaveric lumbar spine.

Methods

Biomechanical tests were performed on lumbar spine specimens from 15 healthy cadavers which were divided in three groups: non-fusion, fusion and intact group. The range of motion (ROM), stability and load-bearing strength were measured.

Results

The prosthesis was composed of three parts: the upper and lower artificial lumbar discs and the middle artificial vertebra. Both the MALC and titanium mesh cage re-established vertebral height, and no spinal cord compression or prosthesis dislocation was observed at the operative level. Regarding stability, there was no significant difference in all directions between the intact group and non-fusion group (P > 0.05). Segment movements of the specimens in the non-fusion group revealed significantly decreased T12–L1 ROM and significantly increased L1–2 and L2–3 ROM in flexion/extension and lateral bending compared with those in the fusion group (P < 0.05). Regarding load-bearing strength, when the lumbar vertebra was ruptured, there was no damage to the MALC and titanium mesh cage, but the maximum load in the non-fusion group was larger (P > 0.05).

Conclusions

Compared with titanium cages, the MALC prosthesis not only restored the vertebral height and effectively preserved segment movements without any abnormal gain of mobility in adjacent inter-vertebral spaces but also bore the lumbar load and reduced the local stress load of adjacent vertebral endplates.

Keywords

Spine Prostheses and implants Biomechanical phenomena Non-fusion Artificial vertebral body 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I would like to express my gratitude to Lu Teng and Liang Hui. They gave us a lot of support and help during the study. I also owe a special debt of gratitude to the fund “The 2016th Science and technology breakthrough project of Henan province” (No. 162102310018) and “Henan provincial science and technology innovation outstanding talent project” (154200510027). In the financial support of them, we finally successfully completed this experiment.

References

  1. 1.
    Chen B et al (2015) Comparison of the therapeutic efficacy of surgery with or without adjuvant radiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone for metastatic spinal cord compression: a meta-analysis. World Neurosurg 83(6):1066–1073CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wang H et al (2012) Epidemiology of spinal fractures among the elderly in Chongqing, China. Inj Int J Care Inj 43(12):2109–2116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bradford R et al (2017) Anterior lumbar corpectomy with expandable titanium cage reconstruction—a case series of 42 patients. World Neurosurg 108:317–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kang C-N et al (2013) Anterior operation for unstable thoracolumbar and lumbar burst fractures tricortical autogenous iliac bone versus titanium mesh cage. J Spinal Disord Tech 26(7):E265–E271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pingel A, Castein J, Kandziora F (2017) Anterior monosegmental stabilization and fusion of an incomplete cranial burst fracture in the thoracolumbar spine via a mini-open, thoracoscopically assisted transthoracic approach. Eur Spine J 26:431–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Scholz M et al. (2017) Prospective randomized controlled comparison of posterior vs. posterior–anterior stabilization of thoracolumbar incomplete cranial burst fractures in neurological intact patients: the RASPUTHINE pilot study. Eur Spine J 27:3016–3024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Liu P et al (2015) A retrospective controlled study of three different operative approaches for the treatment of thoracic and lumbar spinal tuberculosis: three years of follow-up. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 128:25–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zhang C et al (2016) Adjacent segment degeneration versus disease after lumbar spine fusion for degenerative pathology a systematic review with meta-analysis of the literature. Clin Spine Surg 29(1):21–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pan A et al (2016) Adjacent segment degeneration after lumbar spinal fusion compared with motion-preservation procedures: a meta-analysis. Eur Spine J 25(5):1522–1532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kim H-J et al (2015) The influence of intrinsic disc degeneration of the adjacent segments on its stress distribution after one-level lumbar fusion. Eur Spine J 24(4):827–837CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lu S-b et al (2015) An 11-year minimum follow-up of the Charite III lumbar disc replacement for the treatment of symptomatic degenerative disc disease. Eur Spine J 24(9):2056–2064CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wuertinger C et al (2017) Motion preservation following total lumbar disc replacement at the lumbosacral junction: a prospective long-term clinical and radiographic investigation. Spine J 18:72–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ma Y-Z et al (2008) The mid- or long-term clinical results of prosthetic disc nucleus replacement in the treatment of lumbar disc disease. Zhonghua wai ke za zhi [Chinese journal of surgery] 46(5):350–353Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kashkoush A et al (2016) Evaluation of a hybrid dynamic stabilization and fusion system in the lumbar spine: a 10 year experience. Cureus 8(6):e637–e637Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Liu J et al (2017) Lumbar subtotal corpectomy non-fusion model produced using a novel prosthesis. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 137(11):1467–1476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Liu J, Li H, Niu B (2017) Design and activity analysis of bionic artificial lumbar vertebra and disc complex. Orthop Biomech Mater Clin Stud 14(2):5–10Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lu T et al (2017) Single-level anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion using a new 3D-printed anatomy-adaptive titanium mesh cage for treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy and ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament: a retrospective case series study. Med Sci Monit 23:3105–3114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wilke HJ, Wenger K, Claes L (1998) Testing criteria for spinal implants: recommendations for the standardization of in vitro stability testing of spinal implants. Eur Spine J 7(2):148–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Disch AC et al (2007) Three-dimensional stiffness in a thoracolumbar en-bloc spondylectomy model: a biomechanical in vitro study. Clin Biomech 22(9):957–964CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Disch AC et al (2008) En bloc spondylectomy reconstructions in a biomechanical in-vitro study. Eur Spine J 17(5):715–725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wilke HJ, Kettler A, Claes LE (1997) Are sheep spines a valid biomechanical model for human spines? Spine 22(20):2365–2374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ramirez JJ et al (2010) An expandable prosthesis with dual cage-and-plate function in a single device for vertebral body replacement: clinical experience on 14 cases with vertebral tumors. Arch Med Res 41(6):478–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Khodadadyan-Klostermann C et al (2004) Expandable cages: biomechanical comparison of different cages for ventral spondylodesis in the thoracolumbar spine. Chirurg 75(7):694–701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Penzkofer R et al (2011) Biomechanical comparison of the end plate design of three vertebral body replacement systems. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 131(9):1253–1259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Vieweg U (2007) Vertebral body replacement system Synex in unstable burst fractures of the thoracic and lumbar spine. J Orthop Traumatol 8(2):64–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Qin J et al (2012) Artificial cervical vertebra and intervertebral complex replacement through the anterior approach in animal model: a biomechanical and in vivo evaluation of a successful goat model. PLoS One 7(12):e52910CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Dong J et al (2015) Artificial disc and vertebra system: a novel motion preservation device for cervical spinal disease after vertebral corpectomy. Clinics 70(7):493–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Yu J, Liu L-T, Zhao J-N (2013) Design and preliminary biomechanical analysis of artificial cervical joint complex (vol 133, pg 735, 2013). Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 133(9):1329–1329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Jang J-W et al (2014) Effect of posterior subsidence on cervical alignment after anterior cervical corpectomy and reconstruction using titanium mesh cages in degenerative cervical disease. J Clin Neurosci 21(10):1779–1785CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lu T et al (2017) Effects of titanium mesh cage end structures on the compressive load at the endplate interface: a cadaveric biomechanical study. Med Sci Monit 23:2863–2870CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jiantao Liu
    • 1
  • Xijing He
    • 2
  • Zhengchao Gao
    • 2
  • Binbin Niu
    • 2
  • Dongbo Lv
    • 1
  • Yanzheng Gao
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Spine and Spinal CordHenan Provincial People’s HospitalZhengzhouPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.Department of OrthopedicsSecond Affiliated Hospital of Xi’an Jiaotong UniversityXi’anPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations