Literature DB >> 19585159

Local and global subaxial cervical spine biomechanics after single-level fusion or cervical arthroplasty.

Michael A Finn1, Darrel S Brodke, Michael Daubs, Alpesh Patel, Kent N Bachus.   

Abstract

An experimental in vitro biomechanical study was conducted on human cadaveric spines to evaluate the motion segment (C4-C5) and global subaxial cervical spine motion after placement of a cervical arthroplasty device (Altia TDI,Amedica, Salt Lake City, UT) as compared to both the intact spine and a single-level fusion. Six specimens (C2-C7) were tested in flexion/extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation under a +/- 1.5 Nm moment with a 100 N axial follower load. Following the intact spine was tested; the cervical arthroplasty device was implanted at C4-C5 and tested. Then, a fusion using lateral mass fixation and an anterior plate was simulated and tested. Stiffness and range of motion (ROM) data were calculated. The ROM of the C4-C5 motion segment with the arthroplasty device was similar to that of the intact spine in flexion/extension and slightly less in lateral bending and rotation, while the fusion construct allowed significantly less motion in all directions. The fusion construct caused broader effects of increasing motion in the remaining segments of the subaxial cervical spine, whereas the TDI did not alter the adjacent and remote motion segments. The fusion construct was also far stiffer in all motion planes than the intact motion segment and the TDI, while the artificial disc treated level was slightly stiffer than the intact segment. The Altia TDI allows for a magnitude of motion similar to that of the intact spine at the treated and adjacent levels in the in vitro setting.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19585159      PMCID: PMC2899387          DOI: 10.1007/s00586-009-1085-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Spine J        ISSN: 0940-6719            Impact factor:   3.134


  34 in total

1.  A method to simulate in vivo cervical spine kinematics using in vitro compressive preload.

Authors:  Takehiko Miura; Manohar M Panjabi; Peter A Cripton
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2002-01-01       Impact factor: 3.468

2.  Biomechanical study on the effect of cervical spine fusion on adjacent-level intradiscal pressure and segmental motion.

Authors:  Jason C Eck; S Craig Humphreys; Tae-Hong Lim; Soon Tack Jeong; Jesse G Kim; Scott D Hodges; Howard S An
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2002-11-15       Impact factor: 3.468

3.  Internal stress distribution in cervical intervertebral discs: the influence of an artificial cervical joint and simulated anterior interbody fusion.

Authors:  Crispin C Wigfield; Daniel Skrzypiec; Andre Jackowski; Mike A Adams
Journal:  J Spinal Disord Tech       Date:  2003-10

4.  Dislocations with intervertebral disc prosthesis: two case reports.

Authors:  S Aunoble; P Donkersloot; J C Le Huec
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2004-04-28       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  Biomechanical analysis of rotational motions after disc arthroplasty: implications for patients with adult deformities.

Authors:  Paul C McAfee; Bryan W Cunningham; Victor Hayes; Farhan Sidiqi; Michael Dabbah; John C Sefter; Nianbin Hu; Helen Beatson
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2006-09-01       Impact factor: 3.468

6.  Revision strategies for salvaging or improving failed cylindrical cages.

Authors:  P C McAfee; B W Cunningham; G A Lee; C M Orbegoso; C J Haggerty; I L Fedder; S L Griffith
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1999-10-15       Impact factor: 3.468

7.  Influence of an artificial cervical joint compared with fusion on adjacent-level motion in the treatment of degenerative cervical disc disease.

Authors:  Crispin Wigfield; Steven Gill; Richard Nelson; Ilana Langdon; Newton Metcalf; James Robertson
Journal:  J Neurosurg       Date:  2002-01       Impact factor: 5.115

8.  The new Frenchay artificial cervical joint: results from a two-year pilot study.

Authors:  Crispin C Wigfield; Steven S Gill; Richard J Nelson; Newton H Metcalf; James T Robertson
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2002-11-15       Impact factor: 3.468

9.  Cervical disc replacement-porous coated motion prosthesis: a comparative biomechanical analysis showing the key role of the posterior longitudinal ligament.

Authors:  Paul C McAfee; Bryan Cunningham; Anton Dmitriev; Niabin Hu; Seok Woo Kim; Andy Cappuccino; Luiz Pimenta
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2003-10-15       Impact factor: 3.468

10.  Intermediate follow-up after treatment of degenerative disc disease with the Bryan Cervical Disc Prosthesis: single-level and bi-level.

Authors:  Jan Goffin; Frank Van Calenbergh; Johannes van Loon; Adrian Casey; Pierre Kehr; Klaus Liebig; Bengt Lind; Carlo Logroscino; Rosella Sgrambiglia; Vincent Pointillart
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2003-12-15       Impact factor: 3.468

View more
  19 in total

Review 1.  Adjacent segment disease perspective and review of the literature.

Authors:  Fanor M Saavedra-Pozo; Renato A M Deusdara; Edward C Benzel
Journal:  Ochsner J       Date:  2014

2.  Biomechanical effects of cervical arthroplasty with U-shaped disc implant on segmental range of motion and loading of surrounding soft tissue.

Authors:  Zhong Jun Mo; Yan Bin Zhao; Li Zhen Wang; Yu Sun; Ming Zhang; Yu Bo Fan
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-10-24       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  Posterior cervical fixation following laminectomy: a stress analysis of three techniques.

Authors:  Yang Duan; Hui Zhang; Shao-Xiong Min; Li Zhang; An-Min Jin
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-02-12       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  Prosthesis design influences segmental contribution to total cervical motion after cervical disc arthroplasty.

Authors:  Avinash G Patwardhan; Robert M Havey
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2019-07-15       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  Can an Endplate-conformed Cervical Cage Provide a Better Biomechanical Environment than a Typical Non-conformed Cage?: A Finite Element Model and Cadaver Study.

Authors:  Fan Zhang; Hao-Cheng Xu; Bo Yin; Xin-Lei Xia; Xiao-Sheng Ma; Hong-Li Wang; Jun Yin; Ming-Hao Shao; Fei-Zhou Lyu; Jian-Yuan Jiang
Journal:  Orthop Surg       Date:  2016-08       Impact factor: 2.071

6.  Primary and coupled motions after cervical total disc replacement using a compressible six-degree-of-freedom prosthesis.

Authors:  A G Patwardhan; M N Tzermiadianos; P P Tsitsopoulos; L I Voronov; S M Renner; M L Reo; G Carandang; K Ritter-Lang; R M Havey
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2010-09-24       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 7.  Spinal facet joint biomechanics and mechanotransduction in normal, injury and degenerative conditions.

Authors:  Nicolas V Jaumard; William C Welch; Beth A Winkelstein
Journal:  J Biomech Eng       Date:  2011-07       Impact factor: 2.097

8.  Adjacent Segment Pathology After Treatment With Cervical Disc Arthroplasty or Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion, Part 2: Clinical Results at 7-Year Follow-Up.

Authors:  Pierce D Nunley; Eubulus J Kerr; David A Cavanaugh; Phillip Andrew Utter; Peter G Campbell; Rishi Wadhwa; Kelly A Frank; Kyle E Marshall; Marcus B Stone
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2020-06-30

9.  Biomechanical consideration of prosthesis selection in hybrid surgery for bi-level cervical disc degenerative diseases.

Authors:  Zhongjun Mo; Qi Li; Zhiwei Jia; Jiemeng Yang; Duo Wai-Chi Wong; Yubo Fan
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2016-09-21       Impact factor: 3.134

10.  Six-degrees-of-freedom cervical spine range of motion during dynamic flexion-extension after single-level anterior arthrodesis: comparison with asymptomatic control subjects.

Authors:  William J Anderst; Joon Y Lee; William F Donaldson; James D Kang
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2013-03-20       Impact factor: 5.284

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.