Cargando…
Biomechanical comparison of percutaneous posterior endoscopic cervical discectomy and anterior cervical decompression and fusion on the treatment of cervical spondylotic radiculopathy
BACKGROUND: Cervical spondylotic radiculopathy is a common spinal disease. The traditional surgical treatment consists of anterior cervical decompression and fusion (ACDF), but it presents problems such as trauma and fusion complications. Percutaneous posterior endoscopic cervical discectomy (PPECD)...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6399849/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30832736 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13018-019-1113-1 |
_version_ | 1783399823453454336 |
---|---|
author | Ren, Jiabin Li, Rui Zhu, Kai Han, Xuexin Liu, Xin He, Yu Sun, Zhaozhong |
author_facet | Ren, Jiabin Li, Rui Zhu, Kai Han, Xuexin Liu, Xin He, Yu Sun, Zhaozhong |
author_sort | Ren, Jiabin |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Cervical spondylotic radiculopathy is a common spinal disease. The traditional surgical treatment consists of anterior cervical decompression and fusion (ACDF), but it presents problems such as trauma and fusion complications. Percutaneous posterior endoscopic cervical discectomy (PPECD) is a new minimally invasive technology that has produced good clinical outcome, but further biomechanical comparisons are needed to guide the clinical work. The goal of this study was to compare the biomechanical characteristics of the two methods by finite element analysis. METHOD: On the basis of the computed tomography scanning data of five cases of cervical spondylosis after PPECD surgery, five cases after ACDF surgery, and five non-surgical patients, software (Mimics 15.0, HyperMesh 12.0, and Abaqus 6.13) was adopted to establish a C1–C7 segment 3D finite element model. We also applied 50 N vertical load on the C1 surface and 1.5 Nm torque, simulated the anteflexion, rear protraction, and left and right lateral flexion and rotation, and observed the stability, stress distribution, and Cobb angular change of the surgical section of the cervical vertebra under different working conditions. RESULT: The postoperative model under different working conditions demonstrated poorer stability than the non-surgical group, but the stability of the PPECD group was close to that of the non-surgical group. The stability of the ACDF group was the worst, especially when making lateral bending and posterior extension. The ACDF group also showed significant differences. The PPECD group showed uniform stress distribution, whereas the ACDF group was under large stress, which was primarily concentrated in the internal fixation system. In addition, the implant showed the potential for fracture. The Cobb angle of surgery section of the PPECD group was smaller than that of the ACDF group, and the stability of the section was good. CONCLUSION: From the perspective of finite element analysis, the cervical vertebrae after PPECD treatment showed good biomechanical performance and stability. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6399849 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-63998492019-03-13 Biomechanical comparison of percutaneous posterior endoscopic cervical discectomy and anterior cervical decompression and fusion on the treatment of cervical spondylotic radiculopathy Ren, Jiabin Li, Rui Zhu, Kai Han, Xuexin Liu, Xin He, Yu Sun, Zhaozhong J Orthop Surg Res Research Article BACKGROUND: Cervical spondylotic radiculopathy is a common spinal disease. The traditional surgical treatment consists of anterior cervical decompression and fusion (ACDF), but it presents problems such as trauma and fusion complications. Percutaneous posterior endoscopic cervical discectomy (PPECD) is a new minimally invasive technology that has produced good clinical outcome, but further biomechanical comparisons are needed to guide the clinical work. The goal of this study was to compare the biomechanical characteristics of the two methods by finite element analysis. METHOD: On the basis of the computed tomography scanning data of five cases of cervical spondylosis after PPECD surgery, five cases after ACDF surgery, and five non-surgical patients, software (Mimics 15.0, HyperMesh 12.0, and Abaqus 6.13) was adopted to establish a C1–C7 segment 3D finite element model. We also applied 50 N vertical load on the C1 surface and 1.5 Nm torque, simulated the anteflexion, rear protraction, and left and right lateral flexion and rotation, and observed the stability, stress distribution, and Cobb angular change of the surgical section of the cervical vertebra under different working conditions. RESULT: The postoperative model under different working conditions demonstrated poorer stability than the non-surgical group, but the stability of the PPECD group was close to that of the non-surgical group. The stability of the ACDF group was the worst, especially when making lateral bending and posterior extension. The ACDF group also showed significant differences. The PPECD group showed uniform stress distribution, whereas the ACDF group was under large stress, which was primarily concentrated in the internal fixation system. In addition, the implant showed the potential for fracture. The Cobb angle of surgery section of the PPECD group was smaller than that of the ACDF group, and the stability of the section was good. CONCLUSION: From the perspective of finite element analysis, the cervical vertebrae after PPECD treatment showed good biomechanical performance and stability. BioMed Central 2019-03-04 /pmc/articles/PMC6399849/ /pubmed/30832736 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13018-019-1113-1 Text en © The Author(s). 2019 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Ren, Jiabin Li, Rui Zhu, Kai Han, Xuexin Liu, Xin He, Yu Sun, Zhaozhong Biomechanical comparison of percutaneous posterior endoscopic cervical discectomy and anterior cervical decompression and fusion on the treatment of cervical spondylotic radiculopathy |
title | Biomechanical comparison of percutaneous posterior endoscopic cervical discectomy and anterior cervical decompression and fusion on the treatment of cervical spondylotic radiculopathy |
title_full | Biomechanical comparison of percutaneous posterior endoscopic cervical discectomy and anterior cervical decompression and fusion on the treatment of cervical spondylotic radiculopathy |
title_fullStr | Biomechanical comparison of percutaneous posterior endoscopic cervical discectomy and anterior cervical decompression and fusion on the treatment of cervical spondylotic radiculopathy |
title_full_unstemmed | Biomechanical comparison of percutaneous posterior endoscopic cervical discectomy and anterior cervical decompression and fusion on the treatment of cervical spondylotic radiculopathy |
title_short | Biomechanical comparison of percutaneous posterior endoscopic cervical discectomy and anterior cervical decompression and fusion on the treatment of cervical spondylotic radiculopathy |
title_sort | biomechanical comparison of percutaneous posterior endoscopic cervical discectomy and anterior cervical decompression and fusion on the treatment of cervical spondylotic radiculopathy |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6399849/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30832736 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13018-019-1113-1 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT renjiabin biomechanicalcomparisonofpercutaneousposteriorendoscopiccervicaldiscectomyandanteriorcervicaldecompressionandfusiononthetreatmentofcervicalspondyloticradiculopathy AT lirui biomechanicalcomparisonofpercutaneousposteriorendoscopiccervicaldiscectomyandanteriorcervicaldecompressionandfusiononthetreatmentofcervicalspondyloticradiculopathy AT zhukai biomechanicalcomparisonofpercutaneousposteriorendoscopiccervicaldiscectomyandanteriorcervicaldecompressionandfusiononthetreatmentofcervicalspondyloticradiculopathy AT hanxuexin biomechanicalcomparisonofpercutaneousposteriorendoscopiccervicaldiscectomyandanteriorcervicaldecompressionandfusiononthetreatmentofcervicalspondyloticradiculopathy AT liuxin biomechanicalcomparisonofpercutaneousposteriorendoscopiccervicaldiscectomyandanteriorcervicaldecompressionandfusiononthetreatmentofcervicalspondyloticradiculopathy AT heyu biomechanicalcomparisonofpercutaneousposteriorendoscopiccervicaldiscectomyandanteriorcervicaldecompressionandfusiononthetreatmentofcervicalspondyloticradiculopathy AT sunzhaozhong biomechanicalcomparisonofpercutaneousposteriorendoscopiccervicaldiscectomyandanteriorcervicaldecompressionandfusiononthetreatmentofcervicalspondyloticradiculopathy |