» Articles » PMID: 39061634

Using Finite Element Models to Assess Spinal Cord Biomechanics After Cervical Laminoplasty for Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy

Overview
Specialty Radiology
Date 2024 Jul 27
PMID 39061634
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Cervical laminoplasty is an established motion-preserving procedure for degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM). However, patients with pre-existing cervical kyphosis often experience inferior outcomes compared to those with straight or lordotic spines. Limited dorsal spinal cord shift in kyphotic spines post-decompression and increased spinal cord tension may contribute to poor neurological recovery and spinal cord injury. This study aims to quantify the biomechanical impact of cervical sagittal alignment on spinal cord stress and strain post-laminoplasty using a validated 3D finite element model of the C2-T1 spine. Three models were created based on the C2-C7 Cobb angle: lordosis (20 degrees), straight (0 degrees), and kyphosis (-9 degrees). Open-door laminoplasty was simulated at C4, C5, and C6 levels, followed by physiological neck flexion and extension. The results showed that spinal cord stress and strain were highest in kyphotic curvature compared to straight and lordotic curvatures across all cervical segments, despite similar segmental ROM. In flexion, kyphotic spines exhibited 103.3% higher stress and 128.9% higher strain than lordotic spines and 16.7% higher stress and 26.8% higher strain than straight spines. In extension, kyphotic spines showed 135.4% higher stress and 241.7% higher strain than lordotic spines and 21.5% higher stress and 43.2% higher strain than straight spines. The study shows that cervical kyphosis leads to increased spinal cord stress and strain post-laminoplasty, underscoring the need to address sagittal alignment in addition to decompression for optimal patient outcomes.

Citing Articles

Intramedullary Stress and Strain Correlate with Neurological Dysfunction in Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy.

Rahman M, Banurekha Devaraj K, Chauhan O, Harinathan B, Yoganandan N, Vedantam A Appl Sci (Basel). 2025; 15(2).

PMID: 39991023 PMC: 11845244. DOI: 10.3390/app15020886.

References
1.
Ashana A, Ajiboye R, Sheppard W, Ishmael C, Cohen J, Beckett J . Spinal Cord Drift Following Laminoplasty Versus Laminectomy and Fusion for Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy. Int J Spine Surg. 2021; 15(2):205-212. PMC: 8059389. DOI: 10.14444/8028. View

2.
Quint U, Wilke H . Grading of degenerative disk disease and functional impairment: imaging versus patho-anatomical findings. Eur Spine J. 2008; 17(12):1705-13. PMC: 2587674. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-008-0787-6. View

3.
Wang M, Kiapour A, Massaad E, Shin J, Yoganandan N . A guide to finite element analysis models of the spine for clinicians. J Neurosurg Spine. 2023; 40(1):38-44. DOI: 10.3171/2023.7.SPINE23164. View

4.
Patwardhan A, Havey R, Ghanayem A, Diener H, Meade K, Dunlap B . Load-carrying capacity of the human cervical spine in compression is increased under a follower load. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000; 25(12):1548-54. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-200006150-00015. View

5.
Kim B, Cho S, Hur J, Cha J, Kim S . Kinematics after cervical laminoplasty: risk factors for cervical kyphotic deformity after laminoplasty. Spine J. 2021; 21(11):1822-1829. DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2021.06.010. View