Advertisement

European Spine Journal

, Volume 22, Issue 4, pp 747–758 | Cite as

In vivo analysis of cervical kinematics after implantation of a minimally constrained cervical artificial disc replacement

  • Heiko Koller
  • Oliver Meier
  • Juliane Zenner
  • Michael Mayer
  • Wolfgang Hitzl
Original Article

Abstract

Introduction

To better understand cervical kinematics following cervical disc replacement (CDR), the in vivo behavior of a minimally constrained CDR was assessed.

Methods

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.

Results

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).

Conclusion

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.

Keywords

Cervical disc replacement Center of rotation analysis Cervical arthroplasty In-vivo kinematics 

Notes

Conflict of interest

None.

References

  1. 1.
    Anakwenze OA, Auerbach JD, Milby AH, Lonner BS, Balderston RA (2009) Sagittal cervical alignment after cervical disc arthroplasty and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Spine 34:2001–2007PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aretz K, Lamos N, Boyaci B, Melcher R, Harms J (2008) Discover vs PCM—comparison of the cervical prosthesis in 1-year-follow-up: global and segmental alignment, intervertebral mobility, location of prosthesis. Eur Spine J 17:1540–1633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Auerbach JD, Jones KJ, Fras CI, Balderston JR, Rushton SA, Chin KR (2008) The prevalence of indications and contraindications to cervical total disc replacement. Spine J 8:711–716PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barrey C, Mosnier T, Jund J, Perrin G, Skalli W (2009) In vitro evaluation of a ball-and-socket cervical disc prothesis with cranial geometric center. J Neurosurg Spine 11:538–546PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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. 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
  7. 7.
    Bogduk N, Mercer S (2000) Biomechanics of the cervical spine. I: normal kinematics. Clin Biomech 15:633–648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Du J, Li M, Liu H, Meng H, He Q, Luo Z (2011) Early follow-up outcomes after treatment of degenerative disc disease with the discover cervical disc prosthesis. Spine J 11:281–289PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Eck JC, Humphreys SC, Lim T-H (2002) Biomechanical study on the effect of cervical spine fusion on adjacent-level intradiscal pressure and segmental motion. Spine 27:2431–2434PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Frobin W, Leivseth G, Biggemann M, Brinckmann P (2002) Sagittal plane segmental motion of the cervical spine. A new precision measurement protocol and normal motion data of healthy adults. Clin Biomech 17:21–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Greiner-Perth R, Allam Y, Silbermann J, Simank H-G (2009) First experience and preliminary clinical results with the cervical disc replacement DISCOVER. Z Orthop Unfall 147:582–587PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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. 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
  14. 14.
    Harrison DE, Harrison DD, Cailliet R, Troyanovic SJ, Janik TJ, Holland B (2000) Cobb method or Harrison posterior tangent method. Which to chose for lateral cervical radiographic analysis. Spine 25:2072–2078PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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
  16. 16.
    Huang RC, Wright TM, Panjabi MM, Lipman JD (2005) Biomechanics of nonfusion implants. Orthop Clin North Am 36:271–280PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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
  18. 18.
    Kelly MP, Mok JM, Frisch RF, Tay BK (2011) Adjacent segment motion after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion versus ProDisc-C cervical disk arthroplasty. Analysis from a randomized, controlled trial. Spine 36:1171–1179PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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
  20. 20.
    Lee K, Goel VK (2004) Artificial disc prosthesis: design concepts and criteria. Spine J 4:209S–218SPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Link HD, McAfee PC, Pimenta L (2004) Choosing a cervical disc replacement. Spine J 4:294–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Maldonado CV, Paz RD, Martin CB (2011) Adjacent-level degeneration after cervical disc arthroplasty versus fusion. Eur Spine J 20:403–407PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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. 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. 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
  26. 26.
    Philipps FM, Allen TR, Regan JJ, Albert TJ, Cappucino A, Devine KG, Ahrens JE, Hipp JA, McAfee Pc (2009) Cervical disc replacement in patients with and without previous adjacent level fusion surgery. Spine 34:556–565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Picket GE, Rouleau JP, Duggal N (2005) Kinematic analyis of the cervical spine following implantation of an artificial cervical disc. Spine 30:1949–1954CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Reitman CA, Hipp JA, Nguyen L, Esses SI (2004) Changes in segmental intervertebral motion adjacent to cervical arthrodesis: a prospective study. Spine 29:E221–E226PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Reitman CA, Mauro KM, Nguyen L, Ziegler JM, Hipp JA (2004) Intervertebral motion between flexion and extension in asymptomatic individuals. Spine 29:2832–2843PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rousseau MA, Cottin P, Levante S, Alexis N, Lazannec J-Y, Skalli W (2008) In vivo-kinematics of two types of ball-and-socket cervical disc replacements in the sagittal plane. Cranial versus caudal geometric center. Spine 33:E6–E9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sasso RC, Best NM (2008) Cervical kinematics after fusion and Bryan disc arthroplasty. J Spinal Disord 21:19–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sasso RC, Smucker JD, Hacker RJ (2007) Artifical disc versus fusion. A prospective, randomized study with 2-year follow-up on 99 patients. Spine 32:2933–2940PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sears W, McCombe P, Sasso R (2006) Kinematics of cervical and lumbar total disc replacement. Seminar Spine Surg 18:117–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Snyder JT, Tzermiadianos MN, Ghanayem AJ, Voronov LI, Rinella A, Doortis A, Carandang G, Renner SM, Havey RM, Patwardhan AG (2007) Effect of uncovertebral joint excision on the motion response of the cervical spine after total disc replacement. Spine 32:2965–2969PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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
  36. 36.
    Whang PG, Simpson AK, Rechtine G, Gauer JN (2009) Current trends in spinal arthroplasty. J Spinal Disord 22:26–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Wigfield C, Gill S, Nelson R (2002) Influence of an artifical cervical joint compared with fusion on adjacent-level motion in the treatment of degenerative cervical disc disease. J Neurosurg Spine 96:17–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Womack W, Leahy PD, Patel VV, Puttlitz CM (2011) Finite element modeling of kinematic and load transmission alterations due to cervical intervertebral disc replacement. Spine 36:E1126–E1133PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Zechmeister I, Winkler R, Mad P (2011) Artifical total disc replacement versus fusion for the cervical spine: a systematic review. Eur Spine J 20:177–184PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Heiko Koller
    • 1
  • Oliver Meier
    • 1
  • Juliane Zenner
    • 1
  • Michael Mayer
    • 1
    • 2
  • Wolfgang Hitzl
    • 3
  1. 1.Werner Wicker ClinicGerman Scoliosis Center Bad WildungenBad WildungenGermany
  2. 2.Department for Traumatology and Sport InjuriesParacelsus Medical University SalzburgSalzburgAustria
  3. 3.Research Office, BiostatisticsParacelsus Medical University SalzburgSalzburgAustria

Personalised recommendations