Biomechanical Comparison of Optimal Shapes for the Cervical Intervertebral Fusion Cage for C5-C6 Cervical Fusion Using the Anterior Cervical Plate and Cage (ACPC) Fixation System: A Finite Element Analysis

Overview

Journal Med Sci Monit

Specialties General Medicine
Pathology

Date 2019 Nov 8

PMID 31697650

Citations 9

Authors

Jiajia Wang

Zhihui Qian

Luquan Ren

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

BACKGROUND The fifth and sixth cervical vertebrae (C5-C6) represent the high-risk segment requiring surgical correction in cervical spondylosis. Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) of C5-C6 includes an intervertebral fusion cage to maintain foraminal height and is combined with anterior plate fixation. The shape of the intervertebral cage can affect the postoperative outcome, including the rates of fusion, subsidence, and neck pain. This study aimed to use finite element (FE) parametric analysis to compare biomechanical properties of changes in intervertebral cage shape for C5-C6 cervical fusion using the anterior cervical plate and cage (ACPC) fixation system. MATERIAL AND METHODS Five shapes were designed for cervical intervertebral cages, square, oval, kidney-shaped, clover-shaped, and 12-leaf-shaped. The performance was evaluated following implantation into the validated normal C5-C6 FE model using simulation with five physiological conditions. The indicators included the maximum von Mises stress of the endplates, the fusion cages, and the cervical vertebrae. The postoperative subsidence-resistance properties were determined, including the interior stress responses of the intervertebral cages and the surrounding tissues. The fusion-promoting properties were evaluated by the interior stress responses of the bone grafts. RESULTS The optimal shape of the cervical intervertebral cage was the 12-leaf-shape for postoperative subsidence resistance. The kidney shape for the cervical intervertebral cage was optimal for postoperative fusion. CONCLUSIONS FE analysis identified the optimal cervical intervertebral cage design for ACPC fixation of C5-C6. This method may be useful for future developments in the design of spinal implants.

Citing Articles

Biomechanical differences between two different shapes of oblique lumbar interbody fusion cages on whether to add posterior internal fixation system: a finite element analysis.

Liu J, Geng Z, Wang J, Zhang Z, Zhang X, Miao J J Orthop Surg Res. 2023; 18(1):962.

PMID: 38093357 PMC: 10720077. DOI: 10.1186/s13018-023-04461-6.

Biomechanical analysis of customized cage conforming to the endplate morphology in anterior cervical discectomy fusion: A finite element analysis.

Sun B, Han Q, Sui F, Zhang A, Liu Y, Xia P Heliyon. 2023; 9(1):e12923.

PMID: 36747923 PMC: 9898605. DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e12923.

A novel nanohydroxyapatite/polyamide-66 cage for reducing the subsidence rate after single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a comparative study of 7-year follow-up.

Zeng Z, Zhu C, Deng Z, Liu L, Song Y J Orthop Surg Res. 2023; 18(1):54.

PMID: 36653859 PMC: 9850518. DOI: 10.1186/s13018-023-03521-1.

Changes in cervical alignment of Zero-profile device versus conventional cage-plate construct after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a meta-analysis.

Liu Z, Yang Y, Lan J, Xu H, Zhang Z, Miao J J Orthop Surg Res. 2022; 17(1):510.

PMID: 36434715 PMC: 9694539. DOI: 10.1186/s13018-022-03400-1.

Investigating the mechanical effect of the sagittal angle of the cervical facet joint on the cervical intervertebral disc.

Weng R, Huang X, Ye L, Yang C, Cai Z, Xu Y Digit Health. 2022; 8:20552076221134456.

PMID: 36312849 PMC: 9608055. DOI: 10.1177/20552076221134456.

References

Goz V, Buser Z, DOro A, Wang C, Yoon S, Park J . Complications and Risk Factors Using Structural Allograft Versus Synthetic Cage: Analysis 17 783 Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusions Using a National Registry. Global Spine J. 2019; 9(4):388-392. PMC: 6562209. DOI: 10.1177/2192568218797096. View

Alvi M, Kurian S, Wahood W, Goyal A, Elder B, Bydon M . Assessing the Difference in Clinical and Radiologic Outcomes Between Expandable Cage and Nonexpandable Cage Among Patients Undergoing Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Interbody Fusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. World Neurosurg. 2019; 127:596-606.e1. DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2019.03.284. View

Ouyang P, Lu T, He X, Gao Z, Cai X, Jin Z . Biomechanical Comparison of Integrated Fixation Cage Versus Anterior Cervical Plate and Cage in Anterior Cervical Corpectomy and Fusion (ACCF): A Finite Element Analysis. Med Sci Monit. 2019; 25:1489-1498. PMC: 6400022. DOI: 10.12659/MSM.913630. View

Teo E, Ng H . Evaluation of the role of ligaments, facets and disc nucleus in lower cervical spine under compression and sagittal moments using finite element method. Med Eng Phys. 2001; 23(3):155-64. DOI: 10.1016/s1350-4533(01)00036-4. View

Tan J, Bailey C, Dvorak M, Fisher C, Oxland T . Interbody device shape and size are important to strengthen the vertebra-implant interface. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005; 30(6):638-44. DOI: 10.1097/01.brs.0000155419.24198.35. View

Teo E, Yang K, Konstantin Fuss F, Lee K, Qiu T, Ng H . Effects of cervical cages on load distribution of cancellous core: a finite element analysis. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2004; 17(3):226-31. DOI: 10.1097/00024720-200406000-00010. View

Fernandez-Fairen M, Alvarado E, Torres A . Eleven-Year Follow-Up of Two Cohorts of Patients Comparing Stand-Alone Porous Tantalum Cage Versus Autologous Bone Graft and Plating in Anterior Cervical Fusions. World Neurosurg. 2018; 122:e156-e167. DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2018.09.160. View

Balasa A, Bielecki M, Prokopienko M, Kunert P . Lateral approach for recurrent unilateral cervical radiculopathy after anterior discectomy with fusion. Report of two cases. Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne. 2019; 14(2):348-352. PMC: 6528121. DOI: 10.5114/wiitm.2018.78884. View

Kallemeyn N, Gandhi A, Kode S, Shivanna K, Smucker J, Grosland N . Validation of a C2-C7 cervical spine finite element model using specimen-specific flexibility data. Med Eng Phys. 2010; 32(5):482-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.medengphy.2010.03.001. View

10.

Zhang Q, Teo E, Ng H, Lee V . Finite element analysis of moment-rotation relationships for human cervical spine. J Biomech. 2005; 39(1):189-93. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2004.10.029. View

11.

Shea M, Edwards W, White A, Hayes W . Variations of stiffness and strength along the human cervical spine. J Biomech. 1991; 24(2):95-107. DOI: 10.1016/0021-9290(91)90354-p. View

12.

Ha S . Finite element modeling of multi-level cervical spinal segments (C3-C6) and biomechanical analysis of an elastomer-type prosthetic disc. Med Eng Phys. 2005; 28(6):534-41. DOI: 10.1016/j.medengphy.2005.09.006. View

13.

Hsu C . Shape optimization for the subsidence resistance of an interbody device using simulation-based genetic algorithms and experimental validation. J Orthop Res. 2013; 31(7):1158-63. DOI: 10.1002/jor.22317. View

14.

Yang K, Teo E, Konstantin Fuss F . Application of Taguchi method in optimization of cervical ring cage. J Biomech. 2007; 40(14):3251-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2006.12.016. View

15.

Yoganandan N, Kumaresan S, Voo L, Pintar F, Larson S . Finite element modeling of the C4-C6 cervical spine unit. Med Eng Phys. 1996; 18(7):569-74. DOI: 10.1016/1350-4533(96)00013-6. View

16.

Meng L, Zhang Y, Lu Y . Three-dimensional finite element analysis of mini-external fixation and Kirschner wire internal fixation in Bennett fracture treatment. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2012; 99(1):21-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.otsr.2012.07.015. View

17.

Liu C, Liu K, Chu L, Chen L, Deng Z . Posterior percutaneous endoscopic cervical discectomy through lamina-hole approach for cervical intervertebral disc herniation. Int J Neurosci. 2018; 129(7):627-634. DOI: 10.1080/00207454.2018.1503176. View

18.

Moroney S, Schultz A, Miller J, Andersson G . Load-displacement properties of lower cervical spine motion segments. J Biomech. 1988; 21(9):769-79. DOI: 10.1016/0021-9290(88)90285-0. View

19.

Natarajan R, Chen B, An H, Andersson G . Anterior cervical fusion: a finite element model study on motion segment stability including the effect of osteoporosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000; 25(8):955-61. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-200004150-00010. View

20.

Panzer M, Cronin D . C4-C5 segment finite element model development, validation, and load-sharing investigation. J Biomech. 2009; 42(4):480-90. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2008.11.036. View