In vivo analysis of cervical kinematics after implantation of a minimally constrained cervical artificial disc replacement
To better understand cervical kinematics following cervical disc replacement (CDR), the in vivo behavior of a minimally constrained CDR was assessed.
Radiographic analysis of 19 patients undergoing a 1-level CDR from C4–5 to C6–7 (DISCOVER, Depuy-Spine, USA) was performed. Neutral–lateral and flexion–extension radiographs obtained at preop, postop and late follow-up were analyzed for segmental angle and global angle (GA C2–7). Flexion–extension range of motion was analyzed using validated quantitative motion analysis software (QMA®, Medical Metrics, USA). The FSU motion parameters measured at the index and adjacent levels were angular range of motion (ROM), translation and center of rotation (COR). Translation and COR were normalized to the AP dimension of the inferior endplate of the caudal vertebra. All motion parameters, including COR, were compared with normative reference data.
The average patient age was 43.5 ± 7.3 years. The mean follow-up was 15.3 ± 7.2 months. C2–7 ROM was 35.9° ± 15.7° at preop and 45.4° ± 13.6° at follow-up (∆p < .01). Based on the QMA at follow-up, angular ROM at the CDR level measured 9.8° ± 5.9° and translation was 10.1 ± 7.8 %. Individuals with higher ROM at the CDR level had increased translation at that level (p < .001, r = 0.97), increased translation and ROM at the supra-adjacent level (p < .001, r = .8; p = .005, r = .6). There was a strong interrelation between angular ROM and translation at the supra-adjacent level (p < .001, r = .9) and caudal-adjacent level (p < .001, r = .9). The location of the COR at the CDR- and supra-adjacent levels was significantly different for the COR-X (p < .001). Notably, the COR-Y at the CDR level was significantly correlated with the extent of CDR-level translation (p = .02, r = .6). Shell angle, which may be influenced by implant size and positioning had no impact on angular ROM but was correlated with COR-X (p = .05, r = −.6) and COR-Y (p = .04, r = −.5).
The COR is an important parameter for assessing the ability of non-constrained CDRs to replicate the normal kinematics of a FSU. CDR size and location, both of which can impact shell angle, may influence the amount of translation by affecting the location of the COR. Future research is needed to show how much translation is beneficial concerning clinical outcomes and facet loading.
KeywordsCervical disc replacement Center of rotation analysis Cervical arthroplasty In-vivo kinematics
Conflict of interest
- 5.Bartels R, Donk R, Verbeek ALM (2010) No justification for cervical disc protheses in clinical practice: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Neurosurgery 66:1–8Google Scholar
- 6.Barth M, Brenke C, Schmieder K (2010) Radiological outcome and intraoperative findings following explantation of 20 cervical disc prothesis. Eur Spine J 19:1963–2074Google Scholar
- 12.Grob D, Porchet F, Kleinstück FS, Lattig F, Jeszenszky D, Luca A, Mutter U, Mannion AF (2009) A comparison of outcomes of cervical disc arthroplasty and fusion in everyday clinical practice: surgical and methodological aspects. Eur Spine J (E-Pub)Google Scholar
- 13.Guerin P, Luc S, Bourghli A, Gille O, Obeid I, Verdier N, Vital JM (2011) Heterotopic ossification after cervical disc arthroplasty. A prospective study. Annual meeting of the CSRS-E, IstanbulGoogle Scholar
- 15.Hipp JA, Wharton ND (2008) Qunatitative motion analysis (QMA) of Motion preserving and fusion technologies for the Spine. In: Yue J, Bertagnoli R, McAfee P, An H (eds) Motion Preservation Surgery of the Spine: advanced techniques and controversies, New York, ElsevierGoogle Scholar
- 17.Kang JD, Baillargeon EM, Donaldson WF, Lee JY, Anderst WJ (2010) Motion path of the intervertebral center of rotation in single-level fusion patients and asymptomatic controls during dynamic flexion-extension. Annual meeting of the CSRS-A, CharlotteGoogle Scholar
- 19.Lebl DR, Cammisa F, Girardi FP, Lee SM, Wright T, Abjornson C (2011) Retrieval analysis of cervical total disc replacements—a study of in vivo wear, surface properties, and fixation. 18th IMAST, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
- 23.Murrey D, Janssen M, Delamarter R, Goldstein J, Zigler J, Tay B, Darden B (2009) Results of the prospective, randomized, controlled multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study of the ProDisc-C total disc replacement versus anterior discectomy and fusion for the treatment of 1-level symptomatic cervical disc disease. Spine J 9:275–286PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 24.Nabhan A, Ishak B, Steudel WI, Ramadhan S, Steimer O (2011) Assessment of adjacent-segment mobility after cervical disc replacement versus fusion: RCT with 1 year’s results. Eur Spine J (E-pub)Google Scholar
- 25.Patwardhan AG, Tzermiadianos MN, Tsitsopoulos PP, Voronov LI, Renner SM, Reo ML, Carandang G, Ritter-Lang, Harvey RM (2010) Primary and coupled motions after cervical total disc replacement using a compressible six-degree-of-freedom prosthesis. Eur Spine J Suppl 5:S618–S629Google Scholar
- 35.Suchomel P, Jurak L, Benes V, Brabec R R, Brada O, Elgawhary S (2009) Clinical results and development of heterotopic ossification in total cervical disc replacement during a 4-year follow-up. Eur Spine J (E-Pub)Google Scholar
- 40.Zenner J, Meier O, Ferraris L, Koller H (2010) Revision and retrieval of failed cervical disc replacements. Report on characteristics and early outcomes. Annual meeting of the CSRS-A, CharlotteGoogle Scholar