The Appropriate Hybrid Surgical Strategy in Three-level Cervical Degenerative Disc Disease: a Finite Element Analysis

Overview

Journal J Orthop Surg Res

Publisher Biomed Central

Specialty Orthopedics

Date 2019 Dec 18

PMID 31842938

Citations 5

Authors

Y M Xie

Y C Zheng

S J Qiu

K Q Gong

Y Duan

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of this FE study was to analyze the biomechanical characteristics of different HS strategies used in the treatment of three-level CDDD (one-level CDA and two-level ACDF).

Methods: We validated the FE model of an intact cervical spine established by transferring the data, collected by 3D CT scan, to the FE software ABAQUS and comparing these data with the data from published studies. Then, the FE model of hybrid surgery was reconstructed to analyze the range of motion (ROM), facet joint force, and stress distribution on an ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) core.

Results: The current cervical FE model was able to measure the biomechanical changes in a follow-up hybrid surgery simulation. The total ROM of the cervical HS models was substantially decreased compared with the total ROM of the intact group, and the M2 (C3/4 ACDF, C4/5 CDA, and C5/6 ACDF) model had the closest total ROM to the intact group, but the facet joint force adjacent to the treatment levels showed very little difference among them. The stress distribution showed noticeable similarity: two flanks were observed in the center core, but the inlay of M2 was more vulnerable.

Conclusions: Through the comparison of ROM, the facet joint force after CDA, and the stress distribution of the prosthesis, we find that M2 model has a better theoretical outcome, especially in preserving the maximum total ROM.

Citing Articles

Destruction mechanism of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion in frontal impact.

Guo L, Zhang D, Zhang M Med Biol Eng Comput. 2024; 62(12):3855-3873.

PMID: 39048839 DOI: 10.1007/s11517-024-03167-z.

Human head-neck model and its application thresholds: a narrative review.

Liang Z, Wu K, Tian T, Mo F Int J Surg. 2024; 111(1):1042-1070.

PMID: 38990352 PMC: 11745654. DOI: 10.1097/JS9.0000000000001941.

Biomechanical Effects on the Prostheses and Vertebrae of Three-Level Hybrid Surgery: A Finite Element Study.

Huang K, Wang Q, Rong X, Wu T, Ding C, Meng Y Orthop Surg. 2024; 16(8):2019-2029.

PMID: 38898370 PMC: 11293920. DOI: 10.1111/os.14125.

Effect of ACDF combined with different degrees of partial resection of uncovertebral joints on cervical stability and degeneration: a three-dimensional finite element analysis.

Guo W, Jiang Y, Zhu Y, Huang J J Orthop Surg Res. 2022; 17(1):551.

PMID: 36536401 PMC: 9762033. DOI: 10.1186/s13018-022-03447-0.

Classification of three-level hybrid surgery for the treatment of cervical degenerative disc disease: a retrospective study of 108 patients.

Huang K, Wang H, Liu H, Meng Y, Ding C, Wang B BMC Surg. 2022; 22(1):179.

PMID: 35568843 PMC: 9107241. DOI: 10.1186/s12893-022-01627-7.

References

Auerbach J, Jones K, Fras C, Balderston J, Rushton S, Chin K . The prevalence of indications and contraindications to cervical total disc replacement. Spine J. 2007; 8(5):711-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2007.06.018. View

Chang U, Kim D, Lee M, Willenberg R, Kim S, 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(1):33-9. DOI: 10.3171/SPI-07/07/033. View

Laratta J, Shillingford J, Saifi C, Riew K . Cervical Disc Arthroplasty: A Comprehensive Review of Single-Level, Multilevel, and Hybrid Procedures. Global Spine J. 2018; 8(1):78-83. PMC: 5810892. DOI: 10.1177/2192568217701095. View

Yoganandan N, Kumaresan S, Pintar F . Biomechanics of the cervical spine Part 2. Cervical spine soft tissue responses and biomechanical modeling. Clin Biomech (Bristol). 2000; 16(1):1-27. DOI: 10.1016/s0268-0033(00)00074-7. View

Northover J, Wild J, Braybrooke J, Blanco J . The epidemiology of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Skeletal Radiol. 2012; 41(12):1543-6. DOI: 10.1007/s00256-012-1388-3. View

Cho B, Lim J, Sim H, Park J . Biomechanical analysis of the range of motion after placement of a two-level cervical ProDisc-C versus hybrid construct. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010; 35(19):1769-76. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181c225fa. View

Brenke C, Scharf J, Schmieder K, Barth M . High prevalence of heterotopic ossification after cervical disc arthroplasty: outcome and intraoperative findings following explantation of 22 cervical disc prostheses. J Neurosurg Spine. 2012; 17(2):141-6. DOI: 10.3171/2012.4.SPINE12223. View

Sasso W, Smucker J, Sasso M, Sasso R . Long-term Clinical Outcomes of Cervical Disc Arthroplasty: A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2017; 42(4):209-216. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001746. View

Lee S, Im Y, Kim K, Kim Y, Park W, 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(9):700-8. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181f5cb87. View

10.

Park J, Shin J, Lim J . Biomechanical analysis of disc pressure and facet contact force after simulated two-level cervical surgeries (fusion and arthroplasty) and hybrid surgery. World Neurosurg. 2014; 82(6):1388-93. DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2014.06.013. View

11.

Denoziere G, Ku D . Biomechanical comparison between fusion of two vertebrae and implantation of an artificial intervertebral disc. J Biomech. 2006; 39(4):766-75. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2004.07.039. View

12.

Hisey M, Bae H, Davis R, Gaede S, Hoffman G, Kim K . Multi-center, prospective, randomized, controlled investigational device exemption clinical trial comparing Mobi-C Cervical Artificial Disc to anterior discectomy and fusion in the treatment of symptomatic degenerative disc disease in the cervical.... Int J Spine Surg. 2015; 8. PMC: 4325486. DOI: 10.14444/1007. View

13.

Clausen J, Goel V, Traynelis V, 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(3):342-7. DOI: 10.1002/jor.1100150305. View

14.

Barbagallo G, Assietti R, Corbino L, Olindo G, Foti P, Russo V . Early results and review of the literature of a novel hybrid surgical technique combining cervical arthrodesis and disc arthroplasty for treating multilevel degenerative disc disease: opposite or complementary techniques?. Eur Spine J. 2009; 18 Suppl 1:29-39. PMC: 2899598. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-009-0978-9. View

15.

ELsawaf A, Mastronardi L, Roperto R, Bozzao A, Caroli M, Ferrante L . Effect of cervical dynamics on adjacent segment degeneration after anterior cervical fusion with cages. Neurosurg Rev. 2008; 32(2):215-24. DOI: 10.1007/s10143-008-0164-2. View

16.

Schoenfeld A, George A, Bader J, Caram Jr P . Incidence and epidemiology of cervical radiculopathy in the United States military: 2000 to 2009. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2011; 25(1):17-22. DOI: 10.1097/BSD.0b013e31820d77ea. View

17.

Turel M, Kerolus M, Adogwa O, Traynelis V . Cervical arthroplasty: what does the labeling say?. Neurosurg Focus. 2017; 42(2):E2. DOI: 10.3171/2016.11.FOCUS16414. View

18.

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

19.

Finn M, Brodke D, Daubs M, Patel A, Bachus K . Local and global subaxial cervical spine biomechanics after single-level fusion or cervical arthroplasty. Eur Spine J. 2009; 18(10):1520-7. PMC: 2899387. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-009-1085-7. View

20.

Jackson R, Davis R, Hoffman G, Bae H, Hisey M, Kim K . Subsequent surgery rates after cervical total disc replacement using a Mobi-C Cervical Disc Prosthesis versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a prospective randomized clinical trial with 5-year follow-up. J Neurosurg Spine. 2016; 24(5):734-45. DOI: 10.3171/2015.8.SPINE15219. View