Literature DB >> 34551927

In Vitro Biomechanics of Human Cadaveric Cervical Spines With Mature Fusion.

Anna G U Sawa1, Bernardo de Andrada Pereira1, Nestor G Rodriguez-Martinez1, Phillip M Reyes1, Brian P Kelly1, Neil R Crawford1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: This study sought to compare index and adjacent-level biomechanics of cadaveric specimens with mature fusion versus normal spines in intact and acutely fused conditions.
METHODS: Eight human cadaveric cervical spines with mature fusion across 1 to 3 levels were studied. Intervertebral angular range of motion (ROM) was determined at fused and adjacent levels during pure moments inducing flexion-extension (FE), lateral bending (LB), and axial rotation (AR). Mature fusion data were compared to data from normal spine specimens tested intact and then with a 1-level anterior plate/graft (fresh fixation). Bone qualities were compared using dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry.
RESULTS: Mean bone mineral density was significantly greater in mature fusion spines (0.632 ± 0.239 g/cm2) than in normal spines (0.489 ± 0.195 g/cm2) (P < .001). Mean ROM for levels with mature fusion was 42% (FE), 42% (LB), and 29% (AR) of the mean same-level ROM in freshly fixated specimens (P ≤ .045). The mean adjacent-level ROM in spines with mature fusion was less than in normal spines (matched levels) in all directions, with the greatest difference 1 level below fusion (FE: -38%, P < .001; LB: -42%, P < .001; AR: -49%, P = .001), followed by 1 level above fusion (FE: -23%, P = .04; LB: -22%, P = .07; AR: -28%, P = .02) and 2 levels above fusion (FE: -20%, P = .08; LB: -18%, P = .11; AR: -31%, P = .009). Mature fusion reduced the magnitude of coupled LB during AR at C6-7 and C7-T1 (P ≤ .03).
CONCLUSION: Cervical spine segments with mature fusion have higher bone mass, are less flexible than freshly fixed spines, and have reduced mobility at adjacent levels. This manuscript is generously published free of charge by ISASS, the International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery.
Copyright © 2021 ISASS.

Entities:  

Keywords:  adjacent segment; bone mass; cervical; mature fusion

Year:  2021        PMID: 34551927      PMCID: PMC8651198          DOI: 10.14444/8114

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Spine Surg        ISSN: 2211-4599


  31 in total

1.  The effect of multilevel anterior cervical fusion on neck motion.

Authors:  Xiao-Dong Wu; Xin-Wei Wang; Wen Yuan; Yang Liu; Nicholas Tsai; Yu-Cheng Peng; Yu Chen; Cong Wang; Shi-Yi Gu; Hua-Jiang Chen; Xu-Hui Zhou; Hai-Long He; Yuan-Yuan Chen
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2012-01-20       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  What Can Standard in Vitro Biomechanical Testing Tell Us about Adjacent Segment Disease?

Authors:  Brian P Kelly; Nicholas Theodore
Journal:  World Neurosurg       Date:  2015-12-17       Impact factor: 2.104

Review 3.  Do in vivo kinematic studies provide insight into adjacent segment degeneration? A qualitative systematic literature review.

Authors:  Masoud Malakoutian; David Volkheimer; John Street; Marcel F Dvorak; Hans-Joachim Wilke; Thomas R Oxland
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-06-09       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  Anterior cervical plating enhances arthrodesis after discectomy and fusion with cortical allograft.

Authors:  Michael G Kaiser; Regis W Haid; Brian R Subach; Bryan Barnes; Gerald E Rodts
Journal:  Neurosurgery       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 4.654

5.  Adjacent Segment Disease After Cervical Spine Fusion: Evaluation of a 70 Patient Long-Term Follow-Up.

Authors:  Mohamed Alhashash; Mootaz Shousha; Heinrich Boehm
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2018-05-01       Impact factor: 3.468

6.  Adjacent-level range of motion and intradiscal pressure after posterior cervical decompression and fixation: an in vitro human cadaveric model.

Authors:  Ryan M Kretzer; Wesley Hsu; Nianbin Hu; Hidemasa Umekoji; George I Jallo; Paul C McAfee; P Justin Tortolani; Bryan W Cunningham
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2012-06-01       Impact factor: 3.468

7.  A randomized prospective study of an anterior cervical interbody fusion device with a minimum of 2 years of follow-up results.

Authors:  R J Hacker
Journal:  J Neurosurg       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 5.115

8.  Long-term results after anterior cervical fusion and osteosynthetic stabilization for fractures and/or dislocations of the cervical spine.

Authors:  J Goffin; J van Loon; F Van Calenbergh; C Plets
Journal:  J Spinal Disord       Date:  1995-12

Review 9.  Adjacent segment degeneration and adjacent segment disease: the consequences of spinal fusion?

Authors:  Alan S Hilibrand; Matthew Robbins
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2004 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 4.166

10.  Variations Among Human Lumbar Spine Segments and Their Relationships to In Vitro Biomechanics: A Retrospective Analysis of 281 Motion Segments From 85 Cadaveric Spines.

Authors:  Anna G U Sawa; Jennifer N Lehrman; Neil R Crawford; Brian P Kelly
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2020-04-30
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.