European Spine Journal

, Volume 18, Issue 10, pp 1520–1527 | Cite as

Local and global subaxial cervical spine biomechanics after single-level fusion or cervical arthroplasty

  • Michael A. Finn
  • Darrel S. Brodke
  • Michael Daubs
  • Alpesh Patel
  • Kent N. Bachus
Original Article


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.


Cervical 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.


  1. 1.
    Aunoble S, Donkersloot P, Le Huec JC (2004) Dislocations with intervertebral disc prosthesis: two case reports. Eur Spine J 13:464–467. doi: 10.1007/s00586-004-0687-3 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Azmi H, Schlenk RP (2003) Surgery for postarthrodesis adjacent-cervical segment degeneration. Neurosurg Focus 15(3):E6. doi: 10.3171/foc.2003.15.3.6 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baba H, Furusawa N, Imura S, Kawahara N, Tsuchiya H, Tomita K (1993) Late radiographic findings after anterior cervical fusion for spondylotic myeloradiculopathy. Spine 18:2167–2173PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bertagnoli R, Yue JJ, Pfeiffer F, Fenk-Mayer A, Lawrence JP, Kershaw T, Nanieva R (2005) Early results after ProDisc-C cervical disc replacement. J Neurosurg Spine 2:403–410PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Buttner-Janz K, Schellnack K, Zippel H (1989) Biomechanics of the SB Charite lumbar intervertebral disc endoprosthesis. Int Orthop 13:173–176. doi: 10.1007/BF00268042 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cherubino P, Benazzo F, Borromeo U, Perle S (1990) Degenerative arthritis of the adjacent spinal joints following anterior cervical spinal fusion: clinicoradiologic and statistical correlations. Ital J Orthop Traumatol 16:533–543PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cloward RB (1958) The anterior approach for removal of ruptured cervical disks. J Neurosurg 15:602–617PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Coric D, Finger F, Boltes P (2006) Prospective randomized controlled study of the Bryan cervical disc: early clinical results from a single investigational site. J Neurosurg Spine 4:31–35. doi: 10.3171/spi.2006.4.1.31 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cummins BH, Robertson JT, Gill SS (1998) Surgical experience with an implanted artificial cervical joint. J Neurosurg 88:943–948PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    David T (2005) Revision of a Charite artificial disc 9.5 years in vivo to a new Charite artificial disc: case report and explant analysis. Eur Spine J 14:507–511. doi: 10.1007/s00586-004-0842-x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    DiAngelo DJ, Foley KT, Morrow BR, Schwab JS, Song J, German JW, Blair E (2004) In vitro biomechanics of cervical disc arthroplasty with the ProDisc-C total disc implant. Neurosurg Focus 17(3):E7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    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 30:1165–1172. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000162441.23824.95 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Eck JC, Humphreys SC, Lim TH, Jeong ST, Kim JG, Hodges SD, An HS (2002) Biomechanical study on the effect of cervical spine fusion on adjacent-level intradiscal pressure and segmental motion. Spine 27:2431–2434. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200211150-00003 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fernstrom U (1966) Arthroplasty with intercorporal endoprothesis in herniated disc and in painful disc. Acta Chir Scand Suppl 357:154–159PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Geisler FH, Caspar W, Pitzen T, Johnson TA (1998) Reoperation in patients after anterior cervical plate stabilization in degenerative disease. Spine 23:911–920. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199804150-00013 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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
  17. 17.
    Gore DR, Sepic SB (1998) Anterior discectomy and fusion for painful cervical disc disease: a report of 50 patients with an average follow-up of 21 years. Spine 23:2047–2051. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199810010-00002 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hilibrand AS, Carlson GD, Palumbo MA, Jones PK, Bohlman HH (1999) Radiculopathy and myelopathy at segments adjacent to the site of a previous anterior cervical arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 81:519–528PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hilibrand AS, Robbins M (2004) Adjacent segment degeneration and adjacent segment disease: the consequences of spinal fusion? Spine J 4:190S–194S. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2004.07.007 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Katsuura A, Hukuda S, Saruhashi Y, Mori K (2001) Kyphotic malalignment after anterior cervical fusion is one of the factors promoting the degenerative process in adjacent intervertebral levels. Eur Spine J 10:320–324. doi: 10.1007/s005860000243 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    McAfee PC (2006) The advantages of cervical disc replacement for the treatment of degenerative disc disease. Curr Opin Orthop 17:233–239. doi: 10.1097/01.bco.0000223531.42148.c6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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
  23. 23.
    McAfee PC, Cunningham BW, Hayes V, Sidiqi F, Dabbah M, Sefter JC, Hu N, Beatson H (2006) Biomechanical analysis of rotational motions after disc arthroplasty: implications for patients with adult deformities. Spine 31:S152–S160. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000234782.89031.03 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    McAfee PC, Cunningham BW, Lee GA, Orbegoso CM, Haggerty CJ, Fedder IL, Griffith SL (1999) Revision strategies for salvaging or improving failed cylindrical cages. Spine 24:2147–2153. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199910150-00015 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Miura T, Panjabi MM, Cripton PA (2002) A method to simulate in vivo cervical spine kinematics using in vitro compressive preload. Spine 27:43–48. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200201010-00011 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pimenta L, McAfee PC, Cappuccino A, Bellera FP, Link HD (2004) Clinical experience with the new artificial cervical PCM (Cervitech) disc. Spine J 4:315S–321S. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2004.07.024 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Porchet F, Metcalf NH (2004) Clinical outcomes with the Prestige II cervical disc: preliminary results from a prospective randomized clinical trial. Neurosurg Focus 17(3):E6. doi: 10.3171/foc.2004.17.3.6 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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
  29. 29.
    Smith GW, Robinson RA (1958) The treatment of certain cervical–spine disorders by anterior removal of the intervertebral disc and interbody fusion. J Bone Joint Surg Am 40-A:607–624PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Swank ML, Lowery GL, Bhat AL, McDonough RF (1997) Anterior cervical allograft arthrodesis and instrumentation: multilevel interbody grafting or strut graft reconstruction. Eur Spine J 6:138–143. doi: 10.1007/BF01358747 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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. 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
  33. 33.
    Wigfield C, Gill S, Nelson R, Langdon I, Metcalf N, Robertson J (2002) Influence of an artificial cervical joint compared with fusion on adjacent-level motion in the treatment of degenerative cervical disc disease. J Neurosurg 96:17–21PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wigfield CC, Gill SS, Nelson RJ, Metcalf NH, Robertson JT (2002) The new Frenchay artificial cervical joint: results from a two-year pilot study. Spine 27:2446–2452. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200211150-00006 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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
  36. 36.
    Xu R, Ebraheim NA, Klausner T, Yeasting RA (1998) Modified Magerl technique of lateral mass screw placement in the lower cervical spine: an anatomic study. J Spinal Disord 11:237–240. doi: 10.1097/00002517-199806000-00011 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael A. Finn
    • 1
  • Darrel S. Brodke
    • 2
  • Michael Daubs
    • 2
  • Alpesh Patel
    • 2
  • Kent N. Bachus
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of NeurosurgeryUniversity of Utah School of MedicineSalt Lake CityUSA
  2. 2.Department of Orthopedic SurgeryUniversity Orthopaedic Center, University of UtahSalt Lake CityUSA
  3. 3.Orthopaedic Bioengineering LaboratoryUniversity of Utah School of MedicineSalt Lake CityUSA

Personalised recommendations