Bastian Welke1, Michael Schwarze2, Christof Hurschler2, Thorsten Book3, Stephan Magdu3, Dorothea Daentzer3. 1. Laboratory for Biomechanics and Biomaterials, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hannover Medical School, Anna-von-Borries-Str. 1-7, 30625, Hannover, Germany. welke.bastian@mh-hannover.de. 2. Laboratory for Biomechanics and Biomaterials, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hannover Medical School, Anna-von-Borries-Str. 1-7, 30625, Hannover, Germany. 3. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hannover Medical School, Anna-von-Borries-Str. 1-7, 30625, Hannover, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE AND METHODS: For the treatment of degenerative disc diseases of the cervical spine, anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) still represents the standard procedure. However, long term clinical studies have shown a higher incidence of pathologies in the adjacent segments. As an alternative to spinal fusion, cervical total disc replacement (cTDR) or dynamically implants were increasingly used. This in vitro study analyzed the kinematics and intradiscal pressures in seven multi-segmental human cervical spine using hybrid multidirectional test method. The aim of our study was to compare the intact condition with a single-level dynamic stabilization with DCI(®), with cTDR (activC(®)) and with simulated ACDF (CeSPACE(®) cage and CASPAR plate). RESULTS: No significant changes in the kinematics and pressures were observed in all segments after arthroplasty. The DCI(®) significantly decreased the motion of the treated segment in flexion/extension and lateral bending with some remaining residual mobility. Thereby the motion of the upper segment was increased significantly in flexion/extension. No significant changes of the intradiscal pressures were observed. With simulated fusion the motion of the indexed level was significantly decreased in flexion/extension and axial rotation with the greatest changes in the adjacent levels and the highest pressures. CONCLUSION: Based on our biomechanical study the DCI(®) can pose an alternative to fusion, which has a lesser effect on adjacent levels. This might reduce the risk of long-term degeneration in those levels. In particular, the facet joint arthritis and kyphotic deformity, as a contraindication to the arthroplasty, could be a clinical application of the dynamic implant.
PURPOSE AND METHODS: For the treatment of degenerative disc diseases of the cervical spine, anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) still represents the standard procedure. However, long term clinical studies have shown a higher incidence of pathologies in the adjacent segments. As an alternative to spinal fusion, cervical total disc replacement (cTDR) or dynamically implants were increasingly used. This in vitro study analyzed the kinematics and intradiscal pressures in seven multi-segmental human cervical spine using hybrid multidirectional test method. The aim of our study was to compare the intact condition with a single-level dynamic stabilization with DCI(®), with cTDR (activC(®)) and with simulated ACDF (CeSPACE(®) cage and CASPAR plate). RESULTS: No significant changes in the kinematics and pressures were observed in all segments after arthroplasty. The DCI(®) significantly decreased the motion of the treated segment in flexion/extension and lateral bending with some remaining residual mobility. Thereby the motion of the upper segment was increased significantly in flexion/extension. No significant changes of the intradiscal pressures were observed. With simulated fusion the motion of the indexed level was significantly decreased in flexion/extension and axial rotation with the greatest changes in the adjacent levels and the highest pressures. CONCLUSION: Based on our biomechanical study the DCI(®) can pose an alternative to fusion, which has a lesser effect on adjacent levels. This might reduce the risk of long-term degeneration in those levels. In particular, the facet joint arthritis and kyphotic deformity, as a contraindication to the arthroplasty, could be a clinical application of the dynamic implant.
Authors: A G Patwardhan; R M Havey; A J Ghanayem; H Diener; K P Meade; B Dunlap; S D Hodges Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2000-06-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Teng Lu; Ting Zhang; Jun Dong; Quan-Jin Zang; Bao-Hui Yang; Dong Wang; Hao-Peng Li; Xi-Jng He Journal: Nan Fang Yi Ke Da Xue Xue Bao Date: 2017-01-20
Authors: Martin Michael Wachowski; Jan Weiland; Markus Wagner; Riccardo Gezzi; Dietmar Kubein-Meesenburg; Hans Nägerl Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2017-04-04 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Eric B Laxer; Craig D Brigham; Bruce V Darden; P Bradley Segebarth; R Alden Milam; Alfred L Rhyne; Susan M Odum; Leo R Spector Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2016-09-20 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Thomas P Loumeau; Bruce V Darden; Thomas J Kesman; Susan M Odum; Bryce A Van Doren; Eric B Laxer; Daniel B Murrey Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2016-02-11 Impact factor: 3.134