Skip to main content

The effect of different design concepts in lumbar total disc arthroplasty on the range of motion, facet joint forces and instantaneous center of rotation of a L4-5 segment

European Spine Journal volume 18, pages 1695–1705 (2009)Cite this article

Abstract

Although both unconstrained and constrained core lumbar artificial disc designs are in clinical use, the effect of their design on the range of motion, center of rotations, and facet joint forces is not well understood. It is assumed that the constrained configuration causes a fixed center of rotation with high facet forces, while the unconstrained configuration leads to a moving center of rotation with lower loaded facets. The authors disagree with both assumptions and hypothesized that the two different designs do not lead to substantial differences in the results. For the different implant designs, a three-dimensional finite element model was created and subsequently inserted into a validated model of a L4-5 lumbar spinal segment. The unconstrained design was represented by two implants, the Charité® disc and a newly developed disc prosthesis: Slide-Disc®. The constrained design was obtained by a modification of the Slide-Disc® whereby the inner core was rigidly connected to the lower metallic endplate. The models were exposed to an axial compression preload of 1,000 N. Pure unconstrained moments of 7.5 Nm were subsequently applied to the three anatomical main planes. Except for extension, the models predicted only small and moderate inter-implant differences. The calculated values were close to those of the intact segment. For extension, a large difference of about 45% was calculated between both Slide-Disc designs and the Charité® disc. The models predicted higher facet forces for the implants with an unconstrained core compared to an implant with a constrained core. All implants caused a moving center of rotation. Except for axial rotation, the unconstrained and constrained configurations mimicked the intact situation. In axial rotation, only the Slide-Disc® with mobile core reproduced the intact behavior. Results partially support our hypothesis and imply that different implant designs do not lead to strong differences in the range of motion and the location of center of rotations. In contrast, facet forces appeared to be strongly dependent on the implant design. However, due to the great variability in facet forces reported in the literature, together with our results, we could speculate that these forces may be more dependent on the individual spine geometry rather than a specific implant design.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

References

  1. Auerbach JD, Wills BP, McIntosh TC, Balderston RA (2007) Evaluation of spinal kinematics following lumbar total disc replacement and circumferential fusion using in vivo fluoroscopy. Spine 32(5):527–536

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bertagnoli R, Kumar S (2002) Indications for full prosthetic disc arthroplasty: a correlation of clinical outcome against a variety of indications. Eur Spine J 11 Suppl 2:S131–S136

    Google Scholar 

  3. Cunningham BW, Gordon JD, Dmitriev AE, Hu N, McAfee PC (2003) Biomechanical evaluation of total disc replacement arthroplasty: an in vitro human cadaveric model. Spine 28(20):S110–S117

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Cunningham BW, McAfee PC, Geisler FH, Holsapple G, Adams K, Blumenthal SL, Guyer RD, Cappuccino A, Regan JJ, Fedder IL, Tortolani PJ (2008) Distribution of in vivo and in vitro range of motion following 1-level arthroplasty with the CHARITE artificial disc compared with fusion. J Neurosurg Spine 8(1):7–12

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Gertzbein SD, Seligman J, Holtby R, Chan KH, Kapasouri A, Tile M, Cruickshank B (1985) Centrode patterns and segmental instability in degenerative disc disease. Spine 10(3):257–261

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Gertzbein SD, Seligman J, Holtby R, Chan KW, Ogston N, Kapasouri A, Tile M (1986) Centrode characteristics of the lumbar spine as a function of segmental instability. Clin Orthop Relat Res 208:48–51

    Google Scholar 

  7. 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(24):2755–2764

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 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(6):659–666

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Haher TR, O’Brien M, Felmly WT, Welin D, Perrier G, Choueka J, Devlin V, Vassiliou A, Chow G (1992) Instantaneous axis of rotation as a function of the three columns of the spine. Spine 17(6 Suppl):S149–S154

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Hitchon PW, Eichholz K, Barry C, Rubenbauer P, Ingalhalikar A, Nakamura S, Follett K, Lim TH, Torner J (2005) Biomechanical studies of an artificial disc implant in the human cadaveric spine. J Neurosurg Spine 2(3):339–343

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Huang RC, Girardi FP, Cammisa FP Jr, Wright TM (2003) The implications of constraint in lumbar total disc replacement. J Spinal Disord Tech 16(4):412–417

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Käfer W, Cakir B, Mattes T, Reichel H (2008) Orthopaedic spine surgery: an instruction course textbook. Steinkopff, Springer, New York, pp 191–199. ISBN:978-3-7985-1828-5

  13. Kotani Y, Cunningham BW, Abumi K, Dmitriev AE, Hu N, Ito M, Shikinami Y, McAfee PC, Minami A (2006) Multidirectional flexibility analysis of anterior and posterior lumbar artificial disc reconstruction: in vitro human cadaveric spine model. Eur Spine J 15(10):1511–1520

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Lee CK (1988) Accelerated degeneration of the segment adjacent to a lumbar fusion. Spine 13(3):375–377

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Mayer HM, Korge A (2002) Non-fusion technology in degenerative lumbar spinal disorders: facts, questions, challenges. Eur Spine J 11(Suppl 2):S85–S91

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Moumene M, Geisler FH (2007) Comparison of biomechanical function at ideal and varied surgical placement for two lumbar artificial disc implant designs: mobile-core versus fixed-core. Spine 32(17):1840–1851

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Panjabi M, Henderson G, Abjornson C, Yue J (2007) Multidirectional testing of one- and two-level ProDisc-L versus simulated fusions. Spine 32(12):1311–1319

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Panjabi M, Malcolmson G, Teng E, Tominaga Y, Henderson G, Serhan H (2007) Hybrid testing of lumbar CHARITE discs versus fusions. Spine 32(9):959–966 discussion 967

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 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(10):1003–1009

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Pearcy MJ, Bogduk N (1988) Instantaneous axes of rotation of the lumbar intervertebral joints. Spine 13(9):1033–1041

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Reuleaux F (1876) The kinematics of machinery: outline of a theory of machines. Macmillan, London

    Google Scholar 

  22. Rohlmann A, Mann A, Zander T, Bergmann G (2008) Effect of an artificial disc on lumbar spine biomechanics: a probabilistic finite element study. Eur Spine J

  23. Rohlmann A, Neller S, Claes L, Bergmann G, Wilke HJ (2001) Influence of a follower load on intradiscal pressure and intersegmental rotation of the lumbar spine. Spine 26(24):E557–E561

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Rohlmann A, Zander T, Rao M, Bergmann G (2009) Realistic loading conditions for upper body bending. J Biomech 42(7):884–890

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Rundell SA, Auerbach JD, Balderston RA, Kurtz SM (2008) Total disc replacement positioning affects facet contact forces and vertebral body strains. Spine 33(23):2510–2517

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Schlegel JD, Smith JA, Schleusener RL (1996) Lumbar motion segment pathology adjacent to thoracolumbar, lumbar, and lumbosacral fusions. Spine 21(8):970–981

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Schmidt H, Heuer F, Claes L, Wilke HJ (2008) The relation between the instantaneous center of rotation and facet joint forces—a finite element analysis. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 23(3):270–278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Schmidt H, Heuer F, Drumm J, Klezl Z, Claes L, Wilke HJ (2007) Application of a calibration method provides more realistic results for a finite element model of a lumbar spinal segment. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 22(4):377–384

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Schmidt H, Heuer F, Simon U, Kettler A, Rohlmann A, Claes L, Wilke HJ (2006) Application of a new calibration method for a three-dimensional finite element model of a human lumbar annulus fibrosus. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 21(4):337–344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Schmidt H, Heuer F, Wilke HJ (2008) Interaction between finite helical axes and facet joint forces under combined loading. Spine 33(25):2741–2748

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Schmidt H, Heuer F, Wilke HJ (2009) Which axial and bending stiffnesses of posterior implants are required to design a flexible lumbar stabilization system? J Biomech 42(1):48–54

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Schmidt H, Kettler A, Heuer F, Simon U, Claes L, Wilke HJ (2007) Intradiscal pressure, shear strain, and fiber strain in the intervertebral disc under combined loading. Spine 32(7):748–755

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Shah RR, Mohammed S, Saifuddin A, Taylor BA (2003) Radiologic evaluation of adjacent superior segment facet joint violation following transpedicular instrumentation of the lumbar spine. Spine 28(3):272–275

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Shirazi-Adl A, Ahmed AM, Shrivastava SC (1986) Mechanical response of a lumbar motion segment in axial torque alone and combined with compression. Spine 11(9):914–927

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Zander T, Rohlmann A, Bergmann G (2009) Influence of different artificial disc kinematics on spine biomechanics. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 24(2):135–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was financially supported by the German Research Foundation (Wi 1352/14-1). The authors would like to thank Depuy Spine (Raynham, MA, USA) and Weber Instrumente GmbH (Emmingen-Liptingen, Germany) for the supply of their implants. We also would like to thank Dr. Robert Blakytny for his help in editing the manuscript.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Institute of Orthopaedic Research and Biomechanics, University of Ulm, Helmholtzstrasse 14, 89081, Ulm, Germany

    Hendrik Schmidt, Stefan Midderhoff, Kyle Adkins & Hans-Joachim Wilke

Authors
  1. Hendrik Schmidt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stefan Midderhoff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kyle Adkins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hans-Joachim Wilke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hendrik Schmidt.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Schmidt, H., Midderhoff, S., Adkins, K. et al. The effect of different design concepts in lumbar total disc arthroplasty on the range of motion, facet joint forces and instantaneous center of rotation of a L4-5 segment. Eur Spine J 18, 1695–1705 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-009-1146-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-009-1146-y

Keywords

  • Mobile artificial discs
  • Finite element analysis
  • Arthroplasty devices
  • Back pain
  • Implants