Literature DB >> 22262026

Finite element analysis of cervical arthroplasty combined with fusion against 2-level fusion.

Yanbin Zhao1, Qi Li, Zhongjun Mo, Yu Sun, Yubo Fan.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: A biomechanical analysis of cervical arthroplasty and fusion using the finite element method.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the biomechanical performances of hybrid surgery (HS, C45Fusion combined with C56ProDisc-C arthroplasty) and 2-level fusion (TLF). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Cervical disk arthroplasty gained reliable clinical outcomes for treating single-level and 2-level cervical spondylosis. Cervical disk arthroplasty combined with fusion (HS) may be an alternative to 2-level anterior cervical decompression and fusion.
METHODS: The HS model and the TLF model were analyzed using the finite element method. The range of motion (ROM) and adjacent intradikcal pressures (IDPs) under flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation were calculated and compared for both models.
RESULTS: (1) Compared with the normal model, the ROM of C56 increased by 53.2% in flexion-extension, 69.3% in axial rotation, and 69.8% in lateral bending of ProDisc-C arthroplasty in the HS model. (2) The ROM of C3-C7 in the HS model was 22.9 degrees in flexion-extension, decreased by 18.9%, whereas the ROM of C3-C7 in the TLF model was 17.0 degrees, decreased by 39.7% compared with the normal model. (3) The maximal IDP of TLF model increased by 44.4% at C34 and 40.6% at C67 in flexion, whereas the HS model increased by 5.4% and 9.5%, respectively, compared with the normal model. (4) The ROM of the adjacent segment in TLF increased by 0.1% of C34 and 8.3% of C67 in flexion-extension, whereas that of the HS model decreased by 8.1% of C34 and 2.1% of C67 compared with the normal model.
CONCLUSIONS: (1) The ROM of C56 (ProDisc-C arthroplasty) in HS was increased. (2) The HS model has a better ROM of C3-C7 than the TLF model. (3) The HS model offered less increase of adjacent segmental IDP and ROM than the TLF model.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 22262026     DOI: 10.1097/BSD.0b013e318246b163

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Spinal Disord Tech        ISSN: 1536-0652


  6 in total

1.  Clinical and radiological features of hybrid surgery in multilevel cervical degenerative disc disease.

Authors:  Giovanni Grasso
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-10-13       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 2.  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

3.  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

4.  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

5.  Comparison of gunshot entrance morphologies caused by .40-caliber Smith & Wesson, .380-caliber, and 9-mm Luger bullets: a finite element analysis study.

Authors:  Rodrigo Ivo Matoso; Alexandre Rodrigues Freire; Leonardo Soriano de Mello Santos; Eduardo Daruge Junior; Ana Claudia Rossi; Felippe Bevilacqua Prado
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-10-24       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Hybrid implants in anterior cervical decompressive surgery for degenerative disease.

Authors:  Massimiliano Visocchi; Salvatore Marino; Giorgio Ducoli; Giuseppe M V Barbagallo; Pasqualino Ciappetta; Francesco Signorelli
Journal:  J Craniovertebr Junction Spine       Date:  2021-03-04
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.