Literature DB >> 27627721

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

Fan Zhang1, Hao-Cheng Xu1, Bo Yin2, Xin-Lei Xia1, Xiao-Sheng Ma1, Hong-Li Wang1, Jun Yin1, Ming-Hao Shao1, Fei-Zhou Lyu3,4, Jian-Yuan Jiang1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the biomechanical characteristics of endplate-conformed cervical cages by finite element method (FEM) analysis and cadaver study.
METHODS: Twelve specimens (C2 -C7 ) and a finite element model (C3 -C7 ) were subjected to biomechanical evaluations. In the cadaver study, specimens were randomly assigned to intact (I), endplate-conformed (C) and non-conformed (N) groups with C4-5 discs as the treated segments. The morphologies of the endplate-conformed cages were individualized according to CT images of group C and the cages fabricated with a 3-D printer. The non-conformed cages were wedge-shaped and similar to commercially available grafts. Axial pre-compression loads of 73.6 N and moment of 1.8 Nm were used to simulate flexion (FLE), extension (EXT), lateral bending (LB) and axial rotation (AR). Range of motion (ROM) at C4-5 of each specimen was recorded and film sensors fixed between the cages and C5 superior endplates were used to detect interface stress. A finite element model was built based on the CT data of a healthy male volunteer. The morphologies of the endplate-conformed and wedge-shaped, non-conformed cervical cages were both simulated by a reverse engineering technique and implanted at the segment of C4-5 in the finite element model for biomechanical evaluation. Force loading and grouping were similar to those applied in the cadaver study. ROM of C4-5 in group I were recorded to validate the finite element model. Additionally, maximum cage-endplate interface stresses, stress distribution contours on adjoining endplates, intra-disc stresses and facet loadings at adjacent segments were measured and compared between groups.
RESULTS: In the cadaver study, Group C showed a much lower interface stress in all directions of motion (all P < 0.05) and the ROM of C4-5 was smaller in FLE-EXT (P = 0.001) but larger in AR (P = 0.017). FEM analysis produced similar results: the model implanted with an endplate-conformed cage presented a lower interface stress with a more uniform stress distribution than that implanted with a non-conformed cage. Additionally, intra-disc stress and facet loading at the adjacent segments were obviously increased in both groups C and N, especially those at the supra-jacent segments. However, stress increase was milder in group C than in group N for all directions of motion.
CONCLUSIONS: Endplate-conformed cages can decrease cage-endplate interface stress in all directions of motion and increase cervical stability in FLE-EXT. Additionally, adjacent segments are possibly protected because intra-disc stress and facet loading are smaller after endplate-conformed cage implantation. However, axial stability was reduced in group C, indicating that endplate-conformed cage should not be used alone and an anterior plate system is still important in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion.
© 2016 Chinese Orthopaedic Association and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Biomechanical; Cadaver study; Cage; Endplate-conformed; Finite element method

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27627721      PMCID: PMC6584294          DOI: 10.1111/os.12261

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Orthop Surg        ISSN: 1757-7853            Impact factor:   2.071


  44 in total

1.  Geometric and mechanical properties of human cervical spine ligaments.

Authors:  N Yoganandan; S Kumaresan; F A Pintar
Journal:  J Biomech Eng       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 2.097

2.  Anterior cervical graft and plate load sharing.

Authors:  A J Rapoff; T J O'Brien; A J Ghanayem; D M Heisey; T A Zdeblick
Journal:  J Spinal Disord       Date:  1999-02

3.  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

4.  Preliminary experience with the DOC dynamic cervical implant for the treatment of multilevel cervical spondylosis.

Authors:  Michael P Steinmetz; Ann Warbel; Melvin Whitfield; William Bingaman
Journal:  J Neurosurg       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 5.115

5.  Biomechanical comparison of bioabsorbable cervical spine interbody fusion cages.

Authors:  Robert Pflugmacher; Philipp Schleicher; Sarah Gumnior; Oguzhan Turan; Matti Scholz; Tanja Eindorf; Norbert P Haas; Frank Kandziora
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2004-08-15       Impact factor: 3.468

6.  Evaluation of effects of selected factors on inter-vertebral fusion-a simulation study.

Authors:  Xiaobo Wang; Geneviève A Dumas
Journal:  Med Eng Phys       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 2.242

7.  Biomechanical effect of anterior cervical spine fusion on adjacent segments.

Authors:  D J Maiman; S Kumaresan; N Yoganandan; F A Pintar
Journal:  Biomed Mater Eng       Date:  1999       Impact factor: 1.300

8.  Graft subsidence after instrument-assisted anterior cervical fusion.

Authors:  Gary W Tye; R Scott Graham; William C Broaddus; Harold F Young
Journal:  J Neurosurg       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 5.115

9.  Anterior cervical fusion with carbon fiber cage containing coralline hydroxyapatite: preliminary observations in 45 consecutive cases of soft-disc herniation.

Authors:  Umberto Agrillo; Luciano Mastronardi; Fabrizio Puzzilli
Journal:  J Neurosurg       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 5.115

10.  Biomechanical comparison of expandable cages for vertebral body replacement in the cervical spine.

Authors:  Frank Kandziora; Robert Pflugmacher; Jan Schaefer; Matti Scholz; Kathrin Ludwig; Philip Schleicher; Norbert P Haas
Journal:  J Neurosurg       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 5.115

View more
  4 in total

1.  The Mismatch Between Bony Endplates and Grafted Bone Increases Screw Loosening Risk for OLIF Patients With ALSR Fixation Biomechanically.

Authors:  Jing-Chi Li; Tian-Hang Xie; Zhuang Zhang; Zhe-Tao Song; Yue-Ming Song; Jian-Cheng Zeng
Journal:  Front Bioeng Biotechnol       Date:  2022-04-08

2.  Endplate Deformation Due to Open and Strutted Intervertebral Devices.

Authors:  Antonio Valdevit; Anna Kedzierska; Michelle B Gallagher; Jennifer M Schneider; Peter F Ullrich
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2019-12-31

3.  Biomechanical Evaluation of Intervertebral Fusion Process After Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Finite Element Study.

Authors:  Yi-Wei Shen; Yi Yang; Hao Liu; Yue Qiu; Ming Li; Li-Tai Ma; Fang-Ji Gan
Journal:  Front Bioeng Biotechnol       Date:  2022-03-17

4.  Quantitative analysis of near-implant magnesium accumulation for a Si-containing coated AZ31 cage from a goat cervical spine fusion model.

Authors:  Fan Zhang; Haocheng Xu; Hongli Wang; Fang Geng; Xiaosheng Ma; Minghao Shao; Shun Xu; Feizhou Lu; Jianyuan Jiang
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2018-04-04       Impact factor: 2.362

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.