Comparative biomechanical analyses of lower cervical spine post anterior fusion versus intervertebral disc arthroplasty: A geometrically patient-specific poroelastic finite element investigation.
Cervical anterior fusion
Cervical spine
Disc arthroplasty
Patient-specific modeling
Poroelastic finite element analysis
Journal
Journal of orthopaedic translation
ISSN: 2214-031X
Titre abrégé: J Orthop Translat
Pays: Singapore
ID NLM: 101625127
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Sep 2022
Sep 2022
Historique:
received:
29
01
2022
revised:
04
05
2022
accepted:
16
05
2022
entrez:
27
7
2022
pubmed:
28
7
2022
medline:
28
7
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The optimal surgical technique for the treatment of cervical degenerative disc disease (CDDD) towards decreasing the risk of adjacent segment disease (ASD) remains elusive. This study aimed to comparatively investigate the biomechanics of the lower cervical spine following fusion (ACDF) and artificial disc arthroplasty (Bryan® and Prestige LP®) using a validated geometrically patient-specific poroelastic finite element modeling (FEM) approach. Ten subject-specific pre-operative models were developed and validated based on a FEM approach. Poroelastic models were then constructed using post-operation images for three different treatment scenarios: ACDF; Prestige LP® and Bryan® artificial discs at the C5-C6 level. The biomechanical responses at both surgical and adjacent spinal levels were studied subject to static and cyclic loading. Postoperatively, greater range of motion (ROM), higher annulus fibrosus stress and strain values, and increased disc height and fluid loss at the adjacent levels were detected post ACDF, as compared with pre-op as well as artificial disc arthroplasty. The facet joint forces were larger for the Prestige LP® disc, particularly during extension. The lowest values in disc height and fluid exchange were observed in the Bryan® artificial disc arthroplasty models. Biomechanical analyses revealed that ACDF poses the highest potential risk for adjacent disc degeneration. The artificial discs investigated here (Prestige LP® and Bryan®) not only preserved motion at the instrumented level, but also sustained the pre-op ROM and decreased the intradiscal pressure (IDP) and facet joint forces (FJFs) at adjacent levels, particularly during flexion/extension. The Bryan® artificial disc demonstrated the most efficacy in maintaining the natural poroelastic characteristics of adjacent discs. This study provided a technique for clinicians to use quantitative data towards subject-specific evaluation to comparatively evaluate the impact of ACDF and disc arthroplasty using two types of artificial discs on the biomechanics of the cervical spine. It confirms differences in the poroelastic characteristics of adjacent discs for different fixation techniques, and reveals the advantage of artificial discs with a flexible core for decreasing the risk of ASD.
Sections du résumé
Background/Objective
UNASSIGNED
The optimal surgical technique for the treatment of cervical degenerative disc disease (CDDD) towards decreasing the risk of adjacent segment disease (ASD) remains elusive. This study aimed to comparatively investigate the biomechanics of the lower cervical spine following fusion (ACDF) and artificial disc arthroplasty (Bryan® and Prestige LP®) using a validated geometrically patient-specific poroelastic finite element modeling (FEM) approach.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
Ten subject-specific pre-operative models were developed and validated based on a FEM approach. Poroelastic models were then constructed using post-operation images for three different treatment scenarios: ACDF; Prestige LP® and Bryan® artificial discs at the C5-C6 level. The biomechanical responses at both surgical and adjacent spinal levels were studied subject to static and cyclic loading.
Results
UNASSIGNED
Postoperatively, greater range of motion (ROM), higher annulus fibrosus stress and strain values, and increased disc height and fluid loss at the adjacent levels were detected post ACDF, as compared with pre-op as well as artificial disc arthroplasty. The facet joint forces were larger for the Prestige LP® disc, particularly during extension. The lowest values in disc height and fluid exchange were observed in the Bryan® artificial disc arthroplasty models.
Conclusion
UNASSIGNED
Biomechanical analyses revealed that ACDF poses the highest potential risk for adjacent disc degeneration. The artificial discs investigated here (Prestige LP® and Bryan®) not only preserved motion at the instrumented level, but also sustained the pre-op ROM and decreased the intradiscal pressure (IDP) and facet joint forces (FJFs) at adjacent levels, particularly during flexion/extension. The Bryan® artificial disc demonstrated the most efficacy in maintaining the natural poroelastic characteristics of adjacent discs.
The translational potential of this article
UNASSIGNED
This study provided a technique for clinicians to use quantitative data towards subject-specific evaluation to comparatively evaluate the impact of ACDF and disc arthroplasty using two types of artificial discs on the biomechanics of the cervical spine. It confirms differences in the poroelastic characteristics of adjacent discs for different fixation techniques, and reveals the advantage of artificial discs with a flexible core for decreasing the risk of ASD.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35891924
doi: 10.1016/j.jot.2022.05.008
pii: S2214-031X(22)00045-6
pmc: PMC9293956
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
33-43Informations de copyright
© 2022 The Authors.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Références
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2008 Nov;23(9):1095-104
pubmed: 18635294
Spine J. 2008 Sep-Oct;8(5):711-6
pubmed: 17983843
Global Spine J. 2018 Feb;8(1):78-83
pubmed: 29456918
J Biomech. 2020 Mar 26;102:109722
pubmed: 32171494
J Biomech. 2010 Jul 20;43(10):1849-56
pubmed: 20394933
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015 Oct 15;40(20):1578-85
pubmed: 26165217
Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2008 May;105(20):366-72
pubmed: 19626174
J Neurosurg Spine. 2019 Nov 29;:1-9
pubmed: 31783354
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016 Aug 1;41(15):E915-E922
pubmed: 26890952
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2021 Apr 2;22(1):324
pubmed: 33794848
BMJ. 2010 Jul 13;341:c3108
pubmed: 20627982
Orthop Surg. 2021 Jun;13(4):1408-1416
pubmed: 33942538
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010 Apr 20;35(9):939-47
pubmed: 20375779
J Orthop Surg Res. 2021 Jan 6;16(1):12
pubmed: 33407705
Spine J. 2015 Sep 1;15(9):2016-27
pubmed: 25982430
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011 Jun 15;36(14):E950-60
pubmed: 21522044
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012 Mar 15;37(6):445-51
pubmed: 21587111
World Neurosurg. 2019 Jul;127:588-595.e5
pubmed: 30954754
J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2011 Oct;4(7):1234-41
pubmed: 21783132
Medicine (Baltimore). 2017 Oct;96(41):e8291
pubmed: 29019902
J Neurosurg Spine. 2007 Jul;7(1):40-6
pubmed: 17633486
Br J Neurosurg. 2005 Dec;19(6):469-74
pubmed: 16574558
Spine J. 2014 Oct 1;14(10):2290-8
pubmed: 24462531
Med Eng Phys. 1999 Dec;21(10):689-700
pubmed: 10717549
Eur Spine J. 2016 Jul;25(7):2247-54
pubmed: 26684468
Expert Rev Med Devices. 2007 Jul;4(4):437-40
pubmed: 17605678
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005 Sep 1;30(17):1949-54
pubmed: 16135984
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1993 Jan;18(1):136-46
pubmed: 8434314
Eur Spine J. 2019 Oct;28(10):2371-2379
pubmed: 31363916
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001 Dec 15;26(24):2692-700
pubmed: 11740357
Neurosurg Focus. 2004 Sep 15;17(3):E7
pubmed: 15636563
Comput Biol Med. 2019 Jun;109:22-32
pubmed: 31035068
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007 Apr 1;32(7):748-55
pubmed: 17414908
J Orthop Translat. 2020 Apr 02;23:107-112
pubmed: 32642425
Mil Med. 2021 Jan 25;186(Suppl 1):737-744
pubmed: 33499493