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)...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ren, Jiabin, Li, Rui, Zhu, Kai, Han, Xuexin, Liu, Xin, He, Yu, Sun, Zhaozhong
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