Local and global subaxial cervical spine biomechanics after single-level fusion or cervical arthroplasty
- 324 Downloads
An experimental in vitro biomechanical study was conducted on human cadaveric spines to evaluate the motion segment (C4–C5) and global subaxial cervical spine motion after placement of a cervical arthroplasty device (Altia TDI™,Amedica, Salt Lake City, UT) as compared to both the intact spine and a single-level fusion. Six specimens (C2–C7) were tested in flexion/extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation under a ± 1.5 Nm moment with a 100 N axial follower load. Following the intact spine was tested; the cervical arthroplasty device was implanted at C4–C5 and tested. Then, a fusion using lateral mass fixation and an anterior plate was simulated and tested. Stiffness and range of motion (ROM) data were calculated. The ROM of the C4–C5 motion segment with the arthroplasty device was similar to that of the intact spine in flexion/extension and slightly less in lateral bending and rotation, while the fusion construct allowed significantly less motion in all directions. The fusion construct caused broader effects of increasing motion in the remaining segments of the subaxial cervical spine, whereas the TDI did not alter the adjacent and remote motion segments. The fusion construct was also far stiffer in all motion planes than the intact motion segment and the TDI, while the artificial disc treated level was slightly stiffer than the intact segment. The Altia TDI allows for a magnitude of motion similar to that of the intact spine at the treated and adjacent levels in the in vitro setting.
KeywordsCervical arthroplasty Biomechanics Subaxial spine Fusion
We thank Kristin Kraus, M.Sc., for her editorial assistance in preparing this paper. The experiments described in this paper comply with the current laws of the United States.
- 16.Goffin J, Van Calenbergh F, van Loon J, Casey A, Kehr P, Liebig K, Lind B, Logroscino C, Sgrambiglia R, Pointillart V (2003) Intermediate follow-up after treatment of degenerative disc disease with the Bryan cervical disc prosthesis: single-level and bi-level. Spine 28:2673–2678. doi: 10.1097/01.BRS.0000099392.90849.AA PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 22.McAfee PC, Cunningham B, Dmitriev A, Hu N, Woo Kim S, Cappuccino A, Pimenta L (2003) Cervical disc replacement-porous coated motion prosthesis: a comparative biomechanical analysis showing the key role of the posterior longitudinal ligament. Spine 28:S176–S185. doi: 10.1097/01.BRS.0000092219.28382.0C PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 28.Rhyne AL, Siddiqui F, Darden BV (2005) Incidence of post-operative dysphagia following total cervical disc replacement versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with instrumentation (abstract). In: 33rd Annual Cervical Spine Research Society, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
- 31.Urban JP, Holm S, Maroudas A, Nachemson A (1982) Nutrition of the intervertebral disc: effect of fluid flow on solute transport. Clin Orthop Relat Res (170):296–302Google Scholar
- 32.Urban JP, Holm S, Maroudas A, Nachemson A (1977) Nutrition of the intervertebral disk: an in vivo study of solute transport. Clin Orthop Relat Res (129):101–114Google Scholar
- 35.Wigfield CC, Skrzypiec D, Jackowski A, Adams MA (2003) Internal stress distribution in cervical intervertebral discs: the influence of an artificial cervical joint and simulated anterior interbody fusion. J Spinal Disord Tech 16:441–449. doi: 10.1097/00024720-200310000-00002 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar