Cargando…

Comparative analysis of the biomechanics of the adjacent segments after minimally invasive cervical surgeries versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: A finite element study

PURPOSE: Percutaneous full-endoscopic anterior cervical discectomy (PEACD) and posterior cervical foraminotomy (PCF) as alternatives to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) are extensively used in the treatment of patients with cervical spondylotic radiculopathy. The possibility of avoidin...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Chen, Chao, Yuchi, Chen-Xi, Gao, Ziwei, Ma, Xinlong, Zhao, Dong, Li, Jun-Wei, Xu, Baoshan, Zhang, Chun-Qiu, Wang, Zheng, Du, Cheng-Fei, Yang, Qiang
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Chinese Speaking Orthopaedic Society 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7322474/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32642425
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jot.2020.03.006
_version_ 1783551649896202240
author Chen, Chao
Yuchi, Chen-Xi
Gao, Ziwei
Ma, Xinlong
Zhao, Dong
Li, Jun-Wei
Xu, Baoshan
Zhang, Chun-Qiu
Wang, Zheng
Du, Cheng-Fei
Yang, Qiang
author_facet Chen, Chao
Yuchi, Chen-Xi
Gao, Ziwei
Ma, Xinlong
Zhao, Dong
Li, Jun-Wei
Xu, Baoshan
Zhang, Chun-Qiu
Wang, Zheng
Du, Cheng-Fei
Yang, Qiang
author_sort Chen, Chao
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: Percutaneous full-endoscopic anterior cervical discectomy (PEACD) and posterior cervical foraminotomy (PCF) as alternatives to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) are extensively used in the treatment of patients with cervical spondylotic radiculopathy. The possibility of avoiding the risk of accelerated degeneration of the adjacent segments caused by fusion is claimed to be the theoretical advantage of these approaches; however, there is a paucity of supportive evidence from biomechanical data. Therefore, this study investigated and compared the effects of PCF, PEACD, and ACDF on the adjacent segments and operative segments of the cervical spine from a biomechanical standpoint. METHOD: A normal and intact three-dimensional finite element digital model of C4–C7 was constructed and validated, and the finite element models of PEACD, PCF, and ACDF were obtained by modifying the C4–C7 model. All models were exposed to identical conditions of load during flexion, extension, axial rotation, and lateral bending. We calculated the range of motion (ROM), intervertebral disc pressure (IDP), and facet joint contact force (FJCF) of the operative segment and the adjacent segment in different motion conditions. RESULT: The conventional ACDF had a remarkable influence on the ROM and IDP of the operative segment and the adjacent segments. In the PEACD model, the change of ROM was not noticeable; the IDP of the operative segment was significantly smaller, whereas the change of IDP of the adjacent segment was insignificant. In the PCF model, the ROM and IDP of all segments remained unaffected.During extension, the facet joint contact force changed significantly after ACDF, and it changed slightly after PECAD and PCF. CONCLUSION: By comparatively analyzing the biomechanical changes of the cervical spine after PCF, PEACD, and ACDF using the finite element method, we suggested that PCF and PEACD were more suitable for surgical intervention of cervical spondylotic radiculopathy than ACDF from a biomechanical point of view and PCF may outperform PEACD.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7322474
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Chinese Speaking Orthopaedic Society
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-73224742020-07-07 Comparative analysis of the biomechanics of the adjacent segments after minimally invasive cervical surgeries versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: A finite element study Chen, Chao Yuchi, Chen-Xi Gao, Ziwei Ma, Xinlong Zhao, Dong Li, Jun-Wei Xu, Baoshan Zhang, Chun-Qiu Wang, Zheng Du, Cheng-Fei Yang, Qiang J Orthop Translat Original Article PURPOSE: Percutaneous full-endoscopic anterior cervical discectomy (PEACD) and posterior cervical foraminotomy (PCF) as alternatives to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) are extensively used in the treatment of patients with cervical spondylotic radiculopathy. The possibility of avoiding the risk of accelerated degeneration of the adjacent segments caused by fusion is claimed to be the theoretical advantage of these approaches; however, there is a paucity of supportive evidence from biomechanical data. Therefore, this study investigated and compared the effects of PCF, PEACD, and ACDF on the adjacent segments and operative segments of the cervical spine from a biomechanical standpoint. METHOD: A normal and intact three-dimensional finite element digital model of C4–C7 was constructed and validated, and the finite element models of PEACD, PCF, and ACDF were obtained by modifying the C4–C7 model. All models were exposed to identical conditions of load during flexion, extension, axial rotation, and lateral bending. We calculated the range of motion (ROM), intervertebral disc pressure (IDP), and facet joint contact force (FJCF) of the operative segment and the adjacent segment in different motion conditions. RESULT: The conventional ACDF had a remarkable influence on the ROM and IDP of the operative segment and the adjacent segments. In the PEACD model, the change of ROM was not noticeable; the IDP of the operative segment was significantly smaller, whereas the change of IDP of the adjacent segment was insignificant. In the PCF model, the ROM and IDP of all segments remained unaffected.During extension, the facet joint contact force changed significantly after ACDF, and it changed slightly after PECAD and PCF. CONCLUSION: By comparatively analyzing the biomechanical changes of the cervical spine after PCF, PEACD, and ACDF using the finite element method, we suggested that PCF and PEACD were more suitable for surgical intervention of cervical spondylotic radiculopathy than ACDF from a biomechanical point of view and PCF may outperform PEACD. Chinese Speaking Orthopaedic Society 2020-04-02 /pmc/articles/PMC7322474/ /pubmed/32642425 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jot.2020.03.006 Text en © 2020 The Author(s) http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Original Article
Chen, Chao
Yuchi, Chen-Xi
Gao, Ziwei
Ma, Xinlong
Zhao, Dong
Li, Jun-Wei
Xu, Baoshan
Zhang, Chun-Qiu
Wang, Zheng
Du, Cheng-Fei
Yang, Qiang
Comparative analysis of the biomechanics of the adjacent segments after minimally invasive cervical surgeries versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: A finite element study
title Comparative analysis of the biomechanics of the adjacent segments after minimally invasive cervical surgeries versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: A finite element study
title_full Comparative analysis of the biomechanics of the adjacent segments after minimally invasive cervical surgeries versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: A finite element study
title_fullStr Comparative analysis of the biomechanics of the adjacent segments after minimally invasive cervical surgeries versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: A finite element study
title_full_unstemmed Comparative analysis of the biomechanics of the adjacent segments after minimally invasive cervical surgeries versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: A finite element study
title_short Comparative analysis of the biomechanics of the adjacent segments after minimally invasive cervical surgeries versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: A finite element study
title_sort comparative analysis of the biomechanics of the adjacent segments after minimally invasive cervical surgeries versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a finite element study
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7322474/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32642425
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jot.2020.03.006
work_keys_str_mv AT chenchao comparativeanalysisofthebiomechanicsoftheadjacentsegmentsafterminimallyinvasivecervicalsurgeriesversusanteriorcervicaldiscectomyandfusionafiniteelementstudy
AT yuchichenxi comparativeanalysisofthebiomechanicsoftheadjacentsegmentsafterminimallyinvasivecervicalsurgeriesversusanteriorcervicaldiscectomyandfusionafiniteelementstudy
AT gaoziwei comparativeanalysisofthebiomechanicsoftheadjacentsegmentsafterminimallyinvasivecervicalsurgeriesversusanteriorcervicaldiscectomyandfusionafiniteelementstudy
AT maxinlong comparativeanalysisofthebiomechanicsoftheadjacentsegmentsafterminimallyinvasivecervicalsurgeriesversusanteriorcervicaldiscectomyandfusionafiniteelementstudy
AT zhaodong comparativeanalysisofthebiomechanicsoftheadjacentsegmentsafterminimallyinvasivecervicalsurgeriesversusanteriorcervicaldiscectomyandfusionafiniteelementstudy
AT lijunwei comparativeanalysisofthebiomechanicsoftheadjacentsegmentsafterminimallyinvasivecervicalsurgeriesversusanteriorcervicaldiscectomyandfusionafiniteelementstudy
AT xubaoshan comparativeanalysisofthebiomechanicsoftheadjacentsegmentsafterminimallyinvasivecervicalsurgeriesversusanteriorcervicaldiscectomyandfusionafiniteelementstudy
AT zhangchunqiu comparativeanalysisofthebiomechanicsoftheadjacentsegmentsafterminimallyinvasivecervicalsurgeriesversusanteriorcervicaldiscectomyandfusionafiniteelementstudy
AT wangzheng comparativeanalysisofthebiomechanicsoftheadjacentsegmentsafterminimallyinvasivecervicalsurgeriesversusanteriorcervicaldiscectomyandfusionafiniteelementstudy
AT duchengfei comparativeanalysisofthebiomechanicsoftheadjacentsegmentsafterminimallyinvasivecervicalsurgeriesversusanteriorcervicaldiscectomyandfusionafiniteelementstudy
AT yangqiang comparativeanalysisofthebiomechanicsoftheadjacentsegmentsafterminimallyinvasivecervicalsurgeriesversusanteriorcervicaldiscectomyandfusionafiniteelementstudy