European Spine Journal

, Volume 21, Supplement 5, pp 599–611 | Cite as

Kinematic evaluation of one- and two-level Maverick lumbar total disc replacement caudal to a long thoracolumbar spinal fusion

  • Qingan Zhu
  • Eyal Itshayek
  • Claire F. Jones
  • Timothy Schwab
  • Chadwick R. Larson
  • Lawrence G. Lenke
  • Peter A. Cripton
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

Adjacent level degeneration that occurs above and/or below long fusion constructs is a documented clinical problem that is widely believed to be associated with the considerable change in stiffness caused by the fusion. Some researchers have suggested that early degeneration at spinal joints adjacent to a fusion could be treated by implanting total disc replacements at these levels. It is thought that further degeneration could be prevented through the disc replacement’s design aims to reproduce normal disc heights, kinematics and tissue loading. For this reason, there is a clinical need to evaluate if a total disc replacement can maintain both the quantity of motion (i.e. range) and the quality of motion (i.e. center of rotation and coupling) at segments adjacent to a long spinal fusion. The purpose of this study was to experimentally evaluate range of motion (ROM—the intervertebral motion measured) and helical axis of motion (HAM) changes due to one- and two-level Maverick total disc replacement (TDR) adjacent to a long spinal fusion.

Methods

Seven spine specimens (T8–S1) were used in this study (66 ± 19 years old, 3F/4 M). A continuous pure moment of ±5.0 Nm was applied to the specimen in flexion–extension (FE), lateral bending (LB) and axial rotation (AR), with a compressive follower preload of 400 N. The 5.0 Nm data were analyzed to evaluate the operated segment biomechanics at the level of the disc replacements. The data were also analyzed at lower moments using a modified version of Panjabi’s proposed “hybrid” method to evaluate adjacent segment kinematics (intervertebral motion at the segments adjacent to the fusion) under identical overall (T8–S1) specimen rotations. The motion of each vertebra was monitored with an optoelectronic camera system. The biomechanical test was completed for (1) the intact condition and repeated after each surgical technique was applied to the specimen, (2) capsulotomy at L4–L5 and L5–S1, (3) T8–L4 fusion and capsulotomy at L4–L5 and L5–S1, (4) Maverick at L4–L5, and (5) Maverick at L5–S1. The capsulotomy was performed to allow measurement of facet joint loads in a companion study. Paired t tests were used to determine if differences in the kinematic parameters measured were significant. Holm–Sidak corrections for multiple comparisons were applied where appropriate.

Results

Under the 5.0 Nm loads, L4–L5 ROMs tended to decrease in all directions following L4–L5 Maverick replacement (mean = 22 %, compared to the fused condition). Two-level Maverick implantation also tended to reduce L4–S1 ROM (mean 18, 7 and 31 % in FE, LB and AR, respectively, compared to the fused condition without TDR). Following TDR replacement, the HAM location tended to shift posteriorly in FE (at L5–S1), anteriorly in AR, and inferiorly in LB. However, although the above-mentioned trends were observed, neither one- nor two-level TDR replacement showed statistically significant ROM or HAM change in any of the three directions. At the identical T8–S1 posture identified by the modified hybrid analysis, the L4–L5 and L5–S1 levels underwent significant larger motions, relative to the overall specimen rotation, after fusion. In the hybrid analysis, there were no significant differences between the ROM after fusion with intact natural discs at L4–L5 and L5–S1 and the motions at those levels with one or two TDRs implanted.

Conclusions

The present results demonstrated that one or two Maverick discs implanted subjacent to a long thoracolumbar fusion preserved considerable and intact-like ranges of motion and maintained motion patterns similar to the intact specimen, in this ex vivo study with applied pure moments and compressive follower preload. The hybrid analysis demonstrated that, after fusion, the TDR-implanted levels are required to undergo large rotations, relative to those necessary before fusion, in order to achieve the same motion between T8 and S1. Additional clinical and biomechanical research is necessary to determine if such a kinematic demand would be made on these levels clinically and the biomechanical performance of these implants if it were.

Keywords

Biomechanics Total disc replacement Adjacent level effects Scoliosis Instrumentation 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Medtronic Inc., Memphis, TN, USA for funding this study.

Conflict of interest

None.

References

  1. 1.
    Auerbach JD, Jones KJ, Milby AH, Anakwenze OA, Balderston RA (2009) Segmental contribution toward total lumbar range of motion in disc replacement and fusions: a comparison of operative and adjacent levels. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34:2510–2517. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181af2622 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bertagnoli R, Yue JJ, Fenk-Mayer A, Eerulkar J, Emerson JW (2006) Treatment of symptomatic adjacent-segment degeneration after lumbar fusion with total disc arthroplasty by using the prodisc prosthesis: a prospective study with 2-year minimum follow up. J Neurosurg Spine 4:91–97. doi:10.3171/spi.2006.4.2.91 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cho KJ, Suk SI, Park SR, Kim JH, Choi SW, Yoon YH, Won MH (2009) Arthrodesis to L5 versus S1 in long instrumentation and fusion for degenerative lumbar scoliosis. Eur Spine J 18:531–537. doi:10.1007/s00586-009-0883-2 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cripton PA, Bruehlmann SB, Orr TE, Oxland TR, Nolte LP (2000) In vitro axial preload application during spine flexibility testing: towards reduced apparatus-related artefacts. J Biomech 33:1559–1568PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dmitriev AE, Gill NW, Kuklo TR, Rosner MK (2008) Effect of multilevel lumbar disc arthroplasty on the operative- and adjacent-level kinematics and intradiscal pressures: an in vitro human cadaveric assessment. Spine J 8:918–925. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2007.10.034 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Eck KR, Bridwell KH, Ungacta FF, Riew KD, Lapp MA, Lenke LG, Baldus C, Blanke K (2001) Complications and results of long adult deformity fusions down to l4, l5, and the sacrum. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 26:E182–192Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Edwards CC II, Bridwell KH, Patel A, Rinella AS, Berra A, Lenke LG (2004) Long adult deformity fusions to L5 and the sacrum. A matched cohort analysis. Spine 29:1996–2005PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Edwards CC 2nd, Bridwell KH, Patel A, Rinella AS, Jung Kim Y, Berra AB, Della Rocca GJ, Lenke LG (2003) Thoracolumbar deformity arthrodesis to L5 in adults: the fate of the L5–S1 disc. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). doi:10.1097/01.BRS.0000084266.37210.85 Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ekman P, Moller H, Shalabi A, Yu YX, Hedlund R (2009) A prospective randomised study on the long-term effect of lumbar fusion on adjacent disc degeneration. Eur Spine J 18:1175–1186. doi:10.1007/s00586-009-0947-3 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Erkan S, Rivera Y, Wu C, Mehbod AA, Transfeldt EE (2009) Biomechanical comparison of two-level Maverick disc replacement and a hybrid one-level disc replacement and one-level anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Spine J. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2009.04.014 Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gillet P (2003) The fate of the adjacent motion segments after lumbar fusion. J Spinal Disord Tech 16:338–345PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Goel VK, Grauer JN, Patel T, Biyani A, Sairyo K, Vishnubhotla S, Matyas A, Cowgill I, Shaw M, Long R, Dick D, Panjabi MM, Serhan H (2005) Effects of charite artificial disc on the implanted and adjacent spinal segments mechanics using a hybrid testing protocol. Spine 30:2755–2764PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Goertzen DJ, Lane C, Oxland TR (2004) Neutral zone and range of motion in the spine are greater with stepwise loading than with a continuous loading protocol. An in vitro porcine investigation. J Biomech 37:257–261PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Grauer JN, Biyani A, Faizan A, Kiapour A, Sairyo K, Ivanov A, Ebraheim NA, Patel T, Goel VK (2006) Biomechanics of two-level Charite artificial disc placement in comparison to fusion plus single-level disc placement combination. Spine J 6:659–666. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2006.03.011 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Haberl H, Cripton PA, Orr TE, Beutler T, Frei H, Lanksch WR, Nolte LP (2004) Kinematic response of lumbar functional spinal units to axial torsion with and without superimposed compression and flexion/extension. Eur Spine J 13:560–566PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Harding IJ, Charosky S, Vialle R, Chopin DH (2008) Lumbar disc degeneration below a long arthrodesis (performed for scoliosis in adults) to L4 or L5. Eur Spine J 17:250–254. doi:10.1007/s00586-007-0539-z PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    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
  18. 18.
    Huang RC, Wright TM, Panjabi MM, Lipman JD (2005) Biomechanics of nonfusion implants. Orthop Clin North Am 36:271–280PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kettler A, Marin F, Sattelmayer G, Mohr M, Mannel H, Durselen L, Claes L, Wilke HJ (2004) Finite helical axes of motion are a useful tool to describe the three-dimensional in vitro kinematics of the intact, injured and stabilised spine. Eur Spine J 13:553–559. doi:10.1007/s00586-004-0710-8 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kinzel GL, Hall AS, Hillberry BM (1972) Measurement of the total motion between two body segments-I. Analytical development. J Biomech 5:93–105Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kuhns CA, Bridwell KH, Lenke LG, Amor C, Lehman RA, Buchowski JM, Edwards C 2nd, Christine B (2007) Thoracolumbar deformity arthrodesis stopping at L5: fate of the L5–S1 disc, minimum 5-year follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32:2771–2776. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e31815a7ece CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kumar A, Beastall J, Hughes J, Karadimas EJ, Nicol M, Smith F, Wardlaw D (2008) Disc changes in the bridged and adjacent segments after Dynesys dynamic stabilization system after two years. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33:2909–2914. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e31818bdca7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lehman RA Jr, Lenke LG (2007) Long-segment fusion of the thoracolumbar spine in conjunction with a motion-preserving artificial disc replacement: case report and review of the literature. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32:E240–E245. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000259211.22036.2a CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Niosi CA, Zhu QA, Wilson DC, Keynan O, Wilson DR, Oxland TR (2006) Biomechanical characterization of the three-dimensional kinematic behaviour of the Dynesys dynamic stabilization system: an in vitro study. Eur Spine J 15:913–922. doi:10.1007/s00586-005-0948-9 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nunley PD, Jawahar A, Mukherjee DP, Ogden A, Khan Z, Kerr EJ III, Cavanaugh DA (2008) Comparison of pressure effects on adjacent disk levels after 2-level lumbar constructs: fusion, hybrid, and total disk replacement. Surg Neurol 70:247–251 (discussion 251). doi:10.1016/j.surneu.2008.04.011 Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Panjabi M, Henderson G, Abjornson C, Yue J (2007) Multidirectional testing of one- and two-level ProDisc-L versus simulated fusions. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32:1311–1319. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e318059af6f CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Panjabi M, Malcolmson G, Teng E, Tominaga Y, Henderson G, Serhan H (2007) Hybrid testing of lumbar CHARITE discs versus fusions. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32:959–966 (discussion 967). doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000260792.13893.88 Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Panjabi MM (2007) Hybrid multidirectional test method to evaluate spinal adjacent-level effects. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 22:257–265. doi:10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2006.08.006
  29. 29.
    Panjabi MM, Henderson G, James Y, Timm JP (2007) Stabilimax (NZ) versus simulated fusion: evaluation of adjacent-level effects. Eur Spine J 16:2159–2165. doi:10.1007/s00586-007-0444-5 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Park P, Garton HJ, Gala VC, Hoff JT, McGillicuddy JE (2004) Adjacent segment disease after lumbar or lumbosacral fusion: review of the literature. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 29:1938–1944. pii:00007632-200409010-00019Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Patwardhan AG, Havey RM, Carandang G, Simonds J, Voronov LI, Ghanayem AJ, Meade KP, Gavin TM, Paxinos O (2003) Effect of compressive follower preload on the flexion–extension response of the human lumbar spine. J Orthop Res 21:540–546PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Patwardhan AG, Havey RM, Meade KP, Lee B, Dunlap B (1999) A follower load increases the load-carrying capacity of the lumbar spine in compression. Spine 24:1003–1009PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Penta M, Sandhu A, Fraser RD (1995) Magnetic resonance imaging assessment of disc degeneration 10 years after anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 20:743–747Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Quirno M, Kamerlink JR, Valdevit A, Kang M, Yaszay B, Duncan N, Boachie-Adjei O, Lonner BS, Errico TJ (2009) Biomechanical analysis of a disc prosthesis distal to a scoliosis model. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34:1470–1475. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181a8e418 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Rinella A, Bridwell K, Kim Y, Rudzki J, Edwards C, Roh M, Lenke L, Berra A (2004) Late complications of adult idiopathic scoliosis primary fusions to L4 and above: the effect of age and distal fusion level. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 29:318–325. pii:00007632-200402010-00015Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Rohlmann A, Burra NK, Zander T, Bergmann G (2007) Comparison of the effects of bilateral posterior dynamic and rigid fixation devices on the loads in the lumbar spine: a finite element analysis. Eur Spine J 16:1223–1231. doi:10.1007/s00586-006-0292-8 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Schmidt H, Heuer F, Wilke HJ (2008) Interaction between finite helical axes and facet joint forces under combined loading. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33:2741–2748. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e31817c4319 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Seitsalo S, Schlenzka D, Poussa M, Osterman K (1997) Disc degeneration in young patients with isthmic spondylolisthesis treated operatively or conservatively: a long-term follow-up. Eur Spine J 6:393–397PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Seo M, Choi D (2008) Adjacent segment disease after fusion for cervical spondylosis; myth or reality? Br J Neurosurg 22:195–199. doi:10.1080/02688690701790605 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Tan JS, Singh S, Zhu QA, Dvorak MF, Fisher CG, Oxland TR (2008) The effect of cement augmentation and extension of posterior instrumentation on stabilization and adjacent level effects in the elderly spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33:2728–2740. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e318188b2e4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Weinhoffer SL, Guyer RD, Herbert M, Griffith SL (1995) Intradiscal pressure measurements above an instrumented fusion. A cadaveric study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 20:526–531Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Woltring HJ, Huiskes R, De Lange A, Veldpaus FE (1985) Finite centroid and helical axis estimation from noisy landmark measurements in the study of human joint kinematics. J Biomech 18:379–389PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Zander T, Rohlmann A, Bergmann G (2009) Influence of different artificial disc kinematics on spine biomechanics. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 24:135–142. doi:10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2008.11.008 Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Zhu Q, Larson CR, Sjovold SG, Rosler DM, Keynan O, Wilson DR, Cripton PA, Oxland TR (2007) Biomechanical evaluation of the total facet arthroplasty system: 3-dimensional kinematics. Spine 32:55–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Zhu QA, Park YB, Sjovold SG, Niosi CA, Wilson DC, Cripton PA, Oxland TR (2008) Can extra-articular strains be used to measure facet contact forces in the lumbar spine? An in vitro biomechanical study. Proc Inst Mech Eng H 222:171–184PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Qingan Zhu
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Eyal Itshayek
    • 4
    • 5
  • Claire F. Jones
    • 1
    • 2
  • Timothy Schwab
    • 1
    • 2
  • Chadwick R. Larson
    • 1
    • 2
  • Lawrence G. Lenke
    • 6
  • Peter A. Cripton
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Orthopaedic and Injury Biomechanics Group, Departments of Mechanical Engineering and OrthopaedicsUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada
  2. 2.Blusson Spinal Cord CentreICORDVancouverCanada
  3. 3.Department of Orthopaedic and Spinal SurgeryNanfang Hospital Southern Medical UniversityGuangzhouChina
  4. 4.Department of OrthopaedicsUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada
  5. 5.Department of NeurosurgeryHadassah–Hebrew University HospitalJerusalemIsrael
  6. 6.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryWashington University School of MedicineSt. LouisUSA

Personalised recommendations