Advertisement

Adjacent level effects of bi level disc replacement, bi level fusion and disc replacement plus fusion in cervical spine- a finite element based study

      Abstract

      Background

      Studies delineating the adjacent level effect of single level disc replacement systems have been reported in literature. The aim of this study was to compare the adjacent level biomechanics of bi-level disc replacement, bi-level fusion and a construct having adjoining level disc replacement and fusion system.

      Methods

      In total, biomechanics of four models- intact, bi level disc replacement, bi level fusion and fusion plus disc replacement at adjoining levels- was studied to gain insight into the effects of various instrumentation systems on cranial and caudal adjacent levels using finite element analysis (73.6 N+varying moment).

      Findings

      The bi-level fusion models are more than twice as stiff as compared to the intact model during flexion-extension, lateral bending and axial rotation. Bi-level disc replacement model required moments lower than intact model (1.5 Nm). Fusion plus disc replacement model required moment 10–25% more than intact model, except in extension. Adjacent level motions, facet loads and endplate stresses increased substantially in the bi-level fusion model. On the other hand, adjacent level motions, facet loads and endplate stresses were similar to intact for the bi-level disc replacement model. For the fusion plus disc replacement model, adjacent level motions, facet loads and endplate stresses were closer to intact model rather than the bi-level fusion model, except in extension.

      Interpretation

      Based on our finite element analysis, fusion plus disc replacement procedure has less severe biomechanical effects on adjacent levels when compared to bi-level fusion procedure. Bi-level disc replacement procedure did not have any adverse mechanical effects on adjacent levels.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Clinical Biomechanics
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Carragee E.J.
        • Don A.S.
        • Hurwitz E.L.
        • Cuellar J.M.
        • Carrino J.A.
        • Herzog R.
        ISSLS Prize Winner: does discography cause accelerated progression of degeneration changes in the lumbar disc: a ten-year matched cohort study.
        Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009; 34: 2338-2345
        • Chang U.K.
        • Kim D.H.
        • Lee M.C.
        • Willenberg R.
        • Kim S.H.
        • Lim J.
        Changes in adjacent-level disc pressure and facet joint force after cervical arthroplasty compared with cervical discectomy and fusion.
        J. Neurosurg. Spine. 2007; 7: 33-39
        • Clausen J.D.
        • Goel V.K.
        • Traynelis V.C.
        • Scifert J.
        Uncinate processes and Luschka joints influence the biomechanics of the cervical spine: quantification using a finite element model of the C5-C6 segment.
        J. Orthop. Res. 1997; 15: 342-347
        • Coric D.
        • Cassis J.
        • Carew J.D.
        • Boltes M.O.
        Prospective study of cervical arthroplasty in 98 patients involved in 1 of 3 separate investigational device exemption studies from a single investigational site with a minimum 2-year follow-up. Clinical article.
        J. Neurosurg. Spine. 2010; 13: 715-721
      1. Demetropoulos, Constantine K., E.I.F., Dooris, Andrew P., Serhan, Hassan A., Harms, Jurgen, Herkowitz, Harry N., 2008. Motion preservation using the discover total disc replacement: critical considerations in disc sizing and adjacent level surgery. Spine Arthroplasty Society. (Miami, Florida).

        • Diangelo D.J.
        • Roberston J.T.
        • Metcalf N.H.
        • Mcvay B.J.
        • Davis R.C.
        Biomechanical testing of an artificial cervical joint and an anterior cervical plate.
        J. Spinal Disord. Tech. 2003; 16: 314-323
        • Diangelo D.J.
        • Foley K.T.
        • Morrow B.R.
        • Schwab J.S.
        • Song J.
        • German J.W.
        • Blair E.
        In vitro biomechanics of cervical disc arthroplasty with the ProDisc-C total disc implant.
        Neurosurg. Focus. 2004; 17: E7
        • Eck J.C.
        • Humphreys S.C.
        • Lim T.H.
        • Jeong S.T.
        • Kim J.G.
        • Hodges S.D.
        • An H.S.
        Biomechanical study on the effect of cervical spine fusion on adjacent-level intradiscal pressure and segmental motion.
        Spine. 2002; 27: 2431-2434
        • Faizan A.
        Investigation into cervical spine biomechanics following total disc replacement.
        Dept of Bioengineering. University of Toledo, Toledo2008
        • Faizan A.
        • Goel V.
        • Garfin S.
        • Bono C.
        • Serhan H.
        • Biyani A.
        • Elgafy H.
        • Krishna M.
        • Friesem T.
        Do design variations in the artificial disc influence cervical spine biomechanics? A finite element investigation.
        Eur. Spine J. 2009; : 1-10
        • Galbusera F.
        • Bellini C.M.
        • Raimondi M.T.
        • Fornari M.
        • Assietti R.
        Cervical spine biomechanics following implantation of a disc prosthesis.
        Med. Eng. Phys. 2008; 30: 1127-1133
        • Goel V.K.
        • Clausen J.D.
        Prediction of load sharing among spinal components of a C5-C6 motion segment using the finite element approach.
        Spine. 1998; 23: 684-691
        • Goel V.K.
        • Kim Y.E.
        • Lim T.H.
        • Weinstein J.N.
        An analytical investigation of the mechanics of spinal instrumentation.
        Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1988; 13: 1003-1011
        • Goel V.K.
        • Grauer J.N.
        • Patel T.
        • Biyani A.
        • Sairyo K.
        • Vishnubhotla S.
        • Matyas A.
        • Cowgill I.
        • Shaw M.
        • Long R.
        • Dick D.
        • Panjabi M.M.
        • Serhan H.
        Effects of charite artificial disc on the implanted and adjacent spinal segments mechanics using a hybrid testing protocol.
        Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005; 30: 2755-2764
        • Goel V.K.
        • Faizan A.
        • Palepu V.
        • Bhattacharya S.
        Parameters that effect spine biomechanics following cervical disc replacement.
        Eur. Spine J. 2011; : 1-12
        • Goffin J.
        • Geusens E.
        • Vantomme N.
        • Quintens E.
        • Waerzeggers Y.
        • Depreitere B.
        • Van Calenbergh F.
        • Van Loon J.
        Long-term follow-up after interbody fusion of the cervical spine.
        J. Spinal Disord. Tech. 2004; 17: 79-85
        • Grauer J.N.
        • Biyani A.
        • Faizan A.
        • Kiapour A.
        • Sairyo K.
        • Ivanov A.
        • Ebraheim N.A.
        • Patel T.
        • Goel V.K.
        Biomechanics of two-level Charite artificial disc placement in comparison to fusion plus single-level disc placement combination.
        Spine J. 2006; 6: 659-666
        • Hilibrand A.S.
        • Carlson G.D.
        • Palumbo M.A.
        • Jones P.K.
        • Bohlman H.H.
        Radiculopathy and myelopathy at segments adjacent to the site of a previous anterior cervical arthrodesis.
        J. Bone Joint Surg. Am. 1999; 81: 519-528
        • Kumaresan S.
        • Yoganandan N.
        • Pintar F.A.
        • Maiman D.J.
        Finite element modeling of the cervical spine: role of intervertebral disc under axial and eccentric loads.
        Med. Eng. Phys. 1999; 21: 689-700
        • Lee S.H.
        • Im Y.J.
        • Kim K.T.
        • Kim Y.H.
        • Park W.M.
        • Kim K.
        Comparison of cervical spine biomechanics after fixed- and mobile-core artificial disc replacement: a finite element analysis.
        Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011; 36: 700-708
        • Lim T.
        Design of a spinal fixation device and its evaluation: an analytical and experimental approach.
        Dept of BioMedical Engineering. University of Iowa, Iowa City1990
        • Lopez-Espina C.G.
        • Amirouche F.
        • Havalad V.
        Multilevel cervical fusion and its effect on disc degeneration and osteophyte formation.
        Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006; 31: 972-978
        • Metzger M.F.
        • Acosta F.L.
        • Lotz J.L.
        Facet forces sensitive to total disc replacement device position.
        Orthopedics Research Society. 2008 (San Francisco, CA)
        • Panjabi M.M.
        • Krag M.H.
        • Goel V.K.
        A technique for measurement and description of three-dimensional six degree-of-freedom motion of a body joint with an application to the human spine.
        J. Biomech. 1981; 14: 447-460
        • Puttlitz C.M.
        • Diangelo D.J.
        Cervical spine arthroplasty biomechanics.
        Neurosurg. Clin. N. Am. 2005; 16: 589-594
        • Quan G.M.
        • Vital J.M.
        • Hansen S.
        • Pointillart V.
        Eight-year clinical and radiological follow-up of the Bryan cervical disc arthroplasty.
        Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011; 36: 639-646
        • Shim C.S.
        • Lee S.H.
        • Shin H.D.
        • Kang H.S.
        • Choi W.C.
        • Jung B.
        • Choi G.
        • Ahn Y.
        • Lee S.
        • Lee H.Y.
        CHARITE versus ProDisc: a comparative study of a minimum 3-year follow-up.
        Spine. 2007; 32: 1012-1018
        • Shirazi-Adl S.A.
        • Shrivastava S.C.
        • Ahmed A.M.
        Stress analysis of the lumbar disc-body unit in compression. A three-dimensional nonlinear finite element study.
        Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1984; 9: 120-134
        • Stieber J.R.
        • Quirno M.
        • Valdevit A.
        • Kang M.
        • Errico T.J.
        The facet joint loading profile of a cervical intervertebral disc replacement.
        Orthopedic Research Society. 2008 (San Francisco, CA)