Cargando…

In vitro biomechanical comparison after fixed- and mobile-core artificial cervical disc replacement versus fusion

In vitro biomechanical analysis after cervical disc replacement (CDR) with a novel artificial disc prosthesis (mobile core) was conducted and compared with the intact model, simulated fusion, and CDR with a fixed-core prosthesis. The purpose of this experimental study was to analyze the biomechanica...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lou, Jigang, Li, Yuanchao, Wang, Beiyu, Meng, Yang, Wu, Tingkui, Liu, Hao
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Wolters Kluwer Health 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5662325/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29019902
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000008291
_version_ 1783274618304331776
author Lou, Jigang
Li, Yuanchao
Wang, Beiyu
Meng, Yang
Wu, Tingkui
Liu, Hao
author_facet Lou, Jigang
Li, Yuanchao
Wang, Beiyu
Meng, Yang
Wu, Tingkui
Liu, Hao
author_sort Lou, Jigang
collection PubMed
description In vitro biomechanical analysis after cervical disc replacement (CDR) with a novel artificial disc prosthesis (mobile core) was conducted and compared with the intact model, simulated fusion, and CDR with a fixed-core prosthesis. The purpose of this experimental study was to analyze the biomechanical changes after CDR with a novel prosthesis and the differences between fixed- and mobile-core prostheses. Six human cadaveric C2–C7 specimens were biomechanically tested sequentially in 4 different spinal models: intact specimens, simulated fusion, CDR with a fixed-core prosthesis (Discover, DePuy), and CDR with a mobile-core prosthesis (Pretic-I, Trauson). Moments up to 2 Nm with a 75 N follower load were applied in flexion–extension, left and right lateral bending, and left and right axial rotation. The total range of motion (ROM), segmental ROM, and adjacent intradiscal pressure (IDP) were calculated and analyzed in 4 different spinal models, as well as the differences between 2 disc prostheses. Compared with the intact specimens, the total ROM, segmental ROM, and IDP at the adjacent segments showed no significant difference after arthroplasty. Moreover, CDR with a mobile-core prosthesis presented a little higher values of target segment (C5/6) and total ROM than CDR with a fixed-core prosthesis (P > .05). Besides, the difference in IDP at C4/5 after CDR with 2 prostheses was without statistical significance in all the directions of motion. However, the IDP at C6/7 after CDR with a mobile-core prosthesis was lower than CDR with a fixed-core prosthesis in flexion, extension, and lateral bending, with significant difference (P < .05), but not under axial rotation. CDR with a novel prosthesis was effective to maintain the ROM at the target segment and did not affect the ROM and IDP at the adjacent segments. Moreover, CDR with a mobile-core prosthesis presented a little higher values of target segment and total ROM, but lower IDP at the inferior adjacent segment than CDR with a fixed-core prosthesis.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5662325
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Wolters Kluwer Health
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-56623252017-11-21 In vitro biomechanical comparison after fixed- and mobile-core artificial cervical disc replacement versus fusion Lou, Jigang Li, Yuanchao Wang, Beiyu Meng, Yang Wu, Tingkui Liu, Hao Medicine (Baltimore) 7100 In vitro biomechanical analysis after cervical disc replacement (CDR) with a novel artificial disc prosthesis (mobile core) was conducted and compared with the intact model, simulated fusion, and CDR with a fixed-core prosthesis. The purpose of this experimental study was to analyze the biomechanical changes after CDR with a novel prosthesis and the differences between fixed- and mobile-core prostheses. Six human cadaveric C2–C7 specimens were biomechanically tested sequentially in 4 different spinal models: intact specimens, simulated fusion, CDR with a fixed-core prosthesis (Discover, DePuy), and CDR with a mobile-core prosthesis (Pretic-I, Trauson). Moments up to 2 Nm with a 75 N follower load were applied in flexion–extension, left and right lateral bending, and left and right axial rotation. The total range of motion (ROM), segmental ROM, and adjacent intradiscal pressure (IDP) were calculated and analyzed in 4 different spinal models, as well as the differences between 2 disc prostheses. Compared with the intact specimens, the total ROM, segmental ROM, and IDP at the adjacent segments showed no significant difference after arthroplasty. Moreover, CDR with a mobile-core prosthesis presented a little higher values of target segment (C5/6) and total ROM than CDR with a fixed-core prosthesis (P > .05). Besides, the difference in IDP at C4/5 after CDR with 2 prostheses was without statistical significance in all the directions of motion. However, the IDP at C6/7 after CDR with a mobile-core prosthesis was lower than CDR with a fixed-core prosthesis in flexion, extension, and lateral bending, with significant difference (P < .05), but not under axial rotation. CDR with a novel prosthesis was effective to maintain the ROM at the target segment and did not affect the ROM and IDP at the adjacent segments. Moreover, CDR with a mobile-core prosthesis presented a little higher values of target segment and total ROM, but lower IDP at the inferior adjacent segment than CDR with a fixed-core prosthesis. Wolters Kluwer Health 2017-10-13 /pmc/articles/PMC5662325/ /pubmed/29019902 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000008291 Text en Copyright © 2017 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0 This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 4.0, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work, even for commercial purposes, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0
spellingShingle 7100
Lou, Jigang
Li, Yuanchao
Wang, Beiyu
Meng, Yang
Wu, Tingkui
Liu, Hao
In vitro biomechanical comparison after fixed- and mobile-core artificial cervical disc replacement versus fusion
title In vitro biomechanical comparison after fixed- and mobile-core artificial cervical disc replacement versus fusion
title_full In vitro biomechanical comparison after fixed- and mobile-core artificial cervical disc replacement versus fusion
title_fullStr In vitro biomechanical comparison after fixed- and mobile-core artificial cervical disc replacement versus fusion
title_full_unstemmed In vitro biomechanical comparison after fixed- and mobile-core artificial cervical disc replacement versus fusion
title_short In vitro biomechanical comparison after fixed- and mobile-core artificial cervical disc replacement versus fusion
title_sort in vitro biomechanical comparison after fixed- and mobile-core artificial cervical disc replacement versus fusion
topic 7100
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5662325/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29019902
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000008291
work_keys_str_mv AT loujigang invitrobiomechanicalcomparisonafterfixedandmobilecoreartificialcervicaldiscreplacementversusfusion
AT liyuanchao invitrobiomechanicalcomparisonafterfixedandmobilecoreartificialcervicaldiscreplacementversusfusion
AT wangbeiyu invitrobiomechanicalcomparisonafterfixedandmobilecoreartificialcervicaldiscreplacementversusfusion
AT mengyang invitrobiomechanicalcomparisonafterfixedandmobilecoreartificialcervicaldiscreplacementversusfusion
AT wutingkui invitrobiomechanicalcomparisonafterfixedandmobilecoreartificialcervicaldiscreplacementversusfusion
AT liuhao invitrobiomechanicalcomparisonafterfixedandmobilecoreartificialcervicaldiscreplacementversusfusion