Literature DB >> 20395885

Biomechanical analysis of the range of motion after placement of a two-level cervical ProDisc-C versus hybrid construct.

Bo Young Cho1, Jesse Lim, Hong Bo Sim, Jon Park.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: The study design was that of an in vitro human cadaveric biomechanical analysis.
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was the biomechanical analysis of the range of motion (ROM) of a 2-level intact spine control versus total, then operative- and adjacent-segment ROM after (1) 2-level ProDisc-C placement (PP), (2) anterior cervical discectomy and fusions (ACDFs), and (3) hybrid constructs of both. Follower load and multidirectional testing were performed in each instance. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: With in vivo cervical arthroplasties gaining in popularity, limited biomechanical data are available, which highlight changes in the adjacent-level biomechanics after multilevel procedures.
METHODS: Biomechanical testing for ROM was performed using 7 cadaveric C4-T1 spine specimens. Moments up to 2 Nm with a 100 N follower load were applied in flexion/extension (F/E), right and left lateral bending (LB), and right and left axial rotation (AR). Specimens were tested in the intact state and then with a combination of ProDisc-C arthroplasty and ACDF at C5-C6 and C6-C7.
RESULTS: In the 2-level PP group, the increase in ROM in F/E, LB, and AR of C4-T1 occurs due to an increased ROM at the operative level. The ROM of the level adjacent to the operative levels showed no significant change, except at C4-C5 in LB. For the latter level, the ROM of C4-C5 in each direction showed increases for each parameter. In the 2-level fusion C5-C6 and C6-C7 fusion (FF) group, the ROM in F/E, LB, and AR of C4-T1 was decreased because of a decrease in ROM primarily at the fused levels, and the ROM of adjacent levels was increased. In the ProDisc-C/Fusion (PF) and Fusion/ProDisc-C (FP) groups undergoing placements of a 1-level ProDisc-C/1-level fusion with cage and plate, both groups showed no significant ROM change of C4-T1 when compared with the control and no significant change at adjacent levels, with the exception of C4-C5 in LB.
CONCLUSION: (1) Two-level ACDFs decrease whereas 2-level PPs increase the entire C4-T1 ROM. (2) ACDF/ProDisc-C hybrid operations do not alter the C4-T1 ROM. (3) For the ACDF/ProDisc-C hybrid operative groups, the combined ROM of the operative levels showed no significant difference when compared with that of the intact spine. (4) Regarding adjacent-level ROM, a 2-level ACDF increases ROM, but 2-level ProDisc-C and hybrid ACDF/PPs do not show significant change except for LB at C4-C5. (5) When the segmental distribution of C4-T1 ROM is plotted as the percentage of total motion, it demonstrates that for PF and FP groups, the combined ROM of the C5-C6 and C6-C7 operative levels are similar to that of the intact spine in EF and LB. For the PP group, the combined ROM of the operative levels increased, whereas the combined ROM for the FF group is decreased. The decrease or increase of the adjacent C4-C5 or C7-T1 level ROM compensates for the operative levels.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20395885     DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181c225fa

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)        ISSN: 0362-2436            Impact factor:   3.468


  23 in total

1.  [The relevance of the sagittal profile in cervical artificial discs].

Authors:  C Carstens; M Carstens; F Copf
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2011-08       Impact factor: 1.087

2.  Finite element model predicts the biomechanical performance of cervical disc replacement and fusion hybrid surgery with various geometry of ball-and-socket artificial disc.

Authors:  Yang Li; Guy R Fogel; Zhenhua Liao; Weiqiang Liu
Journal:  Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg       Date:  2017-06-08       Impact factor: 2.924

3.  Hybrid Solutions for the Surgical Treatment of Multilevel Degenerative Cervical Disk Disease.

Authors:  Stefan Alexander König; Sebastian Ranguis; Uwe Spetzger
Journal:  Surg J (N Y)       Date:  2015-11-19

Review 4.  Hybrid surgery for multilevel cervical degenerative disc diseases: a systematic review of biomechanical and clinical evidence.

Authors:  Zhiwei Jia; Zhongjun Mo; Fan Ding; Qing He; Yubo Fan; Dike Ruan
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2014-06-08       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  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

6.  Is hybrid surgery of the cervical spine a good balance between fusion and arthroplasty? Pilot results from a single surgeon series.

Authors:  Hwee Weng Dennis Hey; Choon Chiet Hong; Ai Sha Long; Hwan Tak Hee
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2012-08-25       Impact factor: 3.134

7.  Study on biomechanical analysis of two-level cervical Mobi-C and arthrodesis.

Authors:  Chao Sun; Yang Li; Rongjie Feng; Shijie Han
Journal:  Am J Transl Res       Date:  2021-11-15       Impact factor: 4.060

8.  Failure of cervical arthroplasty in a patient with adjacent segment disease associated with Klippel-Feil syndrome.

Authors:  Ioannis D Papanastassiou; Ali A Baaj; Elias Dakwar; Mohammad Eleraky; Frank D Vrionis
Journal:  Indian J Orthop       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 1.251

9.  Comparison of hybrid constructs with 2-level artificial disc replacement and 2-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for surgical reconstruction of the cervical spine: a kinematic study in whole cadavers.

Authors:  Baoge Liu; Zheng Zeng; Tom Van Hoof; Jean Pierre Kalala; Zhenyu Liu; Bingxuan Wu
Journal:  Med Sci Monit       Date:  2015-04-08

10.  Assessing the biofidelity of in vitro biomechanical testing of the human cervical spine.

Authors:  Richard A Wawrose; Forbes E Howington; Clarissa M LeVasseur; Clair N Smith; Brandon K Couch; Jeremy D Shaw; William F Donaldson; Joon Y Lee; Charity G Patterson; William J Anderst; Kevin M Bell
Journal:  J Orthop Res       Date:  2020-05-04       Impact factor: 3.102

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.