Parameters influencing the outcome after total disc replacement at the lumbosacral junction. Part 1: misalignment of the vertebrae adjacent to a total disc replacement affects the facet joint and facet capsule forces in a probabilistic finite element analysis
After total disc replacement with a ball-and-socket joint, reduced range of motion and progression of facet joint degeneration at the index level have been described. The aim of the study was to test the hypothesis that misalignment of the vertebrae adjacent to the implant reduces range of motion and increases facet joint or capsule tensile forces.
A probabilistic finite element analysis was performed using a lumbosacral spine model with an artificial disc at level L5/S1. Misalignment of the L5 vertebra, the gap size of the facet joints, the transection of the posterior longitudinal ligament, and the spinal shape were varied. The model was loaded with pure moments.
Misalignment of the L5 vertebra reduced the range of motion up to 2°. A 2-mm displacement of the L5 vertebra in the anterior direction already led to facet joint forces of approximately 240 N. Extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation caused maximum facet joint forces between 280 and 380 N, while flexion caused maximum forces of approximately 200 N. A 2-mm displacement in the posterior direction led to capsule forces of approximately 80 N. Additional moments increased the maximum facet capsule forces to values between 120 and 230 N.
Misalignment of the vertebrae adjacent to an artificial disc strongly increases facet joint or capsule forces. It might, therefore, be an important reason for unsatisfactory clinical results. In an associated clinical study (Part 2), these findings are validated.
KeywordsTotal disc replacement Misalignment Facet joint degeneration Finite element analysis Probabilistic
- 2.Guyer RD, McAfee PC, Banco RJ, Bitan FD, Cappuccino A, Geisler FH, Hochschuler SH, Holt RT, Jenis LG, Majd ME, Regan JJ, Tromanhauser SG, Wong DC, Blumenthal SL (2009) Prospective, randomized, multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study of lumbar total disc replacement with the CHARITE artificial disc versus lumbar fusion: five-year follow-up. Spine J 9:374–386PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 7.Siepe CJ, Zelenkov P, Sauri-Barraza JC, Szeimies U, Grubinger T, Tepass A, Stabler A, Mayer MH (2010) The fate of facet joint and adjacent level disc degeneration following total lumbar disc replacement: a prospective clinical, X-ray, and magnetic resonance imaging investigation. Spine 35:1991–2003PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.Eberlein R, Holzapfel GA, Schulze-Bauer CAJ (2000) An anisotropic model for annulus tissue and enhanced finite element analysis of intact lumbar disc bodies. Comp Meth Biomech Biomed Eng 4:209–229Google Scholar
- 14.Nolte LP, Panjabi MM, Oxland TR (1990) Biomechanical properties of lumbar spinal ligaments. In: Heimke G, Soltesz U, Lee AJC (eds) Clinical Implant Materials. Advances in Biomaterials, Elsevier, pp 663–668Google Scholar
- 19.Rohlmann A, Zander T, Bock B, Bergmann G (2008) Effect of position and height of a mobile core type artificial disc on the biomechanical behaviour of the lumbar spine. Proc Inst Mech Eng [H] 222:229–239Google Scholar
- 20.Zander T, Rohlmann A, Bergmann G (2006) Comparison of conventional and kinematic modeling of an artificial disc. In: 7th international symposium on computer methods in biomechanics and biomedical engineering. Antibes Juan Les Pins, FranceGoogle Scholar
- 30.Strube P, Hoff E, Schmidt H, Dreischarf M, Rohlmann A, Putzier M (submitted) Parameters influencing the outcome after total disc replacement at the lumbosacral juction. Part 2: distraction and retrolisthesis lead to clinical failure after a mean follow-up of 5 years. Eur Spine J (under review)Google Scholar