Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  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 34:2001–2007

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 17:1540–1633

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 8:711–716

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 11:538–546

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 66:1–8

    Google Scholar 

  6. Barth M, Brenke C, Schmieder K (2010) Radiological outcome and intraoperative findings following explantation of 20 cervical disc prothesis. Eur Spine J 19:1963–2074

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bogduk N, Mercer S (2000) Biomechanics of the cervical spine. I: normal kinematics. Clin Biomech 15:633–648

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 11:281–289

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 27:2431–2434

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 17:21–31

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 147:582–587

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google 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)

  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, Istanbul

  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 25:2072–2078

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google 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, Elsevier

  16. Huang RC, Wright TM, Panjabi MM, Lipman JD (2005) Biomechanics of nonfusion implants. Orthop Clin North Am 36:271–280

    Article  PubMed  Google 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, Charlotte

  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 36:1171–1179

    Article  PubMed  Google 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, Copenhagen

  20. Lee K, Goel VK (2004) Artificial disc prosthesis: design concepts and criteria. Spine J 4:209S–218S

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Link HD, McAfee PC, Pimenta L (2004) Choosing a cervical disc replacement. Spine J 4:294–302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Maldonado CV, Paz RD, Martin CB (2011) Adjacent-level degeneration after cervical disc arthroplasty versus fusion. Eur Spine J 20:403–407

    Article  PubMed  Google 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 9:275–286

    Article  PubMed  Google 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)

  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–S629

  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 34:556–565

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Picket GE, Rouleau JP, Duggal N (2005) Kinematic analyis of the cervical spine following implantation of an artificial cervical disc. Spine 30:1949–1954

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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–E226

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Reitman CA, Mauro KM, Nguyen L, Ziegler JM, Hipp JA (2004) Intervertebral motion between flexion and extension in asymptomatic individuals. Spine 29:2832–2843

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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–E9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Sasso RC, Best NM (2008) Cervical kinematics after fusion and Bryan disc arthroplasty. J Spinal Disord 21:19–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 32:2933–2940

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Sears W, McCombe P, Sasso R (2006) Kinematics of cervical and lumbar total disc replacement. Seminar Spine Surg 18:117–129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 32:2965–2969

    Article  PubMed  Google 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)

  36. Whang PG, Simpson AK, Rechtine G, Gauer JN (2009) Current trends in spinal arthroplasty. J Spinal Disord 22:26–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 96:17–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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–E1133

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Zechmeister I, Winkler R, Mad P (2011) Artifical total disc replacement versus fusion for the cervical spine: a systematic review. Eur Spine J 20:177–184

    Article  PubMed  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, Charlotte

Download references

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Werner Wicker Clinic, German Scoliosis Center Bad Wildungen, Im Kreuzfeld 4, 34537, Bad Wildungen, Germany

    Heiko Koller, Oliver Meier, Juliane Zenner & Michael Mayer

  2. Department for Traumatology and Sport Injuries, Paracelsus Medical University Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria

    Michael Mayer

  3. Research Office, Biostatistics, Paracelsus Medical University Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria

    Wolfgang Hitzl

Authors
  1. Heiko Koller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Oliver Meier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Juliane Zenner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Michael Mayer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Wolfgang Hitzl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Heiko Koller.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Koller, H., Meier, O., Zenner, J. et al. In vivo analysis of cervical kinematics after implantation of a minimally constrained cervical artificial disc replacement. Eur Spine J 22, 747–758 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-012-2583-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-012-2583-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation