Cargando…

A Comparison Study of Four Cervical Disk Arthroplasty Devices Using Finite Element Models

STUDY DESIGN: The study examined and compared four artificial cervical disks using validated finite element models. PURPOSE: To compare and contrast the biomechanical behavior of four artificial cervical disks by determining the external (range of motion) and internal (facet force and intradiscal pr...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Purushothaman, Yuvaraj, Choi, Hoon, Yoganandan, Narayan, Jebaseelan, Davidson, Baisden, Jamie, Kurpad, Shekar
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Korean Society of Spine Surgery 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8217849/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33108850
http://dx.doi.org/10.31616/asj.2020.0117
_version_ 1783710676526563328
author Purushothaman, Yuvaraj
Choi, Hoon
Yoganandan, Narayan
Jebaseelan, Davidson
Baisden, Jamie
Kurpad, Shekar
author_facet Purushothaman, Yuvaraj
Choi, Hoon
Yoganandan, Narayan
Jebaseelan, Davidson
Baisden, Jamie
Kurpad, Shekar
author_sort Purushothaman, Yuvaraj
collection PubMed
description STUDY DESIGN: The study examined and compared four artificial cervical disks using validated finite element models. PURPOSE: To compare and contrast the biomechanical behavior of four artificial cervical disks by determining the external (range of motion) and internal (facet force and intradiscal pressure) responses following cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) and to elucidate any device design effects on cervical biomechanics. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: Despite CDA’s increasing popularity most studies compare the CDA procedure with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. There is little comparative evaluation of different artificial disks and, therefore, little understanding of how varying disk designs may influence spinal biomechanics. METHODS: A validated C2–T1 finite element model was subjected to flexion-extension. CDAs were simulated at the C5–C6 level with the Secure-C, Mobi-C, Prestige LP, and Prodisc C prosthetic disks. We used a hybrid loading protocol to apply sagittal moments. Normalized motions at the index and adjacent levels, and intradiscal pressures and facet column loads were also obtained. RESULTS: The ranges of motion at the index level increased after CDA. The Mobi-C prosthesis demonstrated the highest amount of flexion, followed by the Secure-C, Prestige LP, and Prodisc C. The Secure-C demonstrated the highest amount of extension, followed by the Mobi-C, Prodisc C, and Prestige LP. The motion decreased at the rostral and caudal adjacent levels. Facet forces increased at the index level and decreased at the rostral and caudal adjacent levels following CDA. Intradiscal pressures decreased at the adjacent levels for the Mobi-C, Secure-C, and Prodisc C. Conversely, the use of the Prestige LP increased intradiscal pressure at both adjacent levels. CONCLUSIONS: While all artificial disks were useful in restoring the index level motion, the Secure-C and Mobi-C translating abilities allowed for lower intradiscal pressures at the adjacent segments and may be the driving mechanism for minimizing adjacent segment degenerative arthritic changes. The facet joint integrity should also be considered in the clinical decision-making process for CDA selection.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8217849
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Korean Society of Spine Surgery
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-82178492021-07-02 A Comparison Study of Four Cervical Disk Arthroplasty Devices Using Finite Element Models Purushothaman, Yuvaraj Choi, Hoon Yoganandan, Narayan Jebaseelan, Davidson Baisden, Jamie Kurpad, Shekar Asian Spine J Basic Study STUDY DESIGN: The study examined and compared four artificial cervical disks using validated finite element models. PURPOSE: To compare and contrast the biomechanical behavior of four artificial cervical disks by determining the external (range of motion) and internal (facet force and intradiscal pressure) responses following cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) and to elucidate any device design effects on cervical biomechanics. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: Despite CDA’s increasing popularity most studies compare the CDA procedure with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. There is little comparative evaluation of different artificial disks and, therefore, little understanding of how varying disk designs may influence spinal biomechanics. METHODS: A validated C2–T1 finite element model was subjected to flexion-extension. CDAs were simulated at the C5–C6 level with the Secure-C, Mobi-C, Prestige LP, and Prodisc C prosthetic disks. We used a hybrid loading protocol to apply sagittal moments. Normalized motions at the index and adjacent levels, and intradiscal pressures and facet column loads were also obtained. RESULTS: The ranges of motion at the index level increased after CDA. The Mobi-C prosthesis demonstrated the highest amount of flexion, followed by the Secure-C, Prestige LP, and Prodisc C. The Secure-C demonstrated the highest amount of extension, followed by the Mobi-C, Prodisc C, and Prestige LP. The motion decreased at the rostral and caudal adjacent levels. Facet forces increased at the index level and decreased at the rostral and caudal adjacent levels following CDA. Intradiscal pressures decreased at the adjacent levels for the Mobi-C, Secure-C, and Prodisc C. Conversely, the use of the Prestige LP increased intradiscal pressure at both adjacent levels. CONCLUSIONS: While all artificial disks were useful in restoring the index level motion, the Secure-C and Mobi-C translating abilities allowed for lower intradiscal pressures at the adjacent segments and may be the driving mechanism for minimizing adjacent segment degenerative arthritic changes. The facet joint integrity should also be considered in the clinical decision-making process for CDA selection. Korean Society of Spine Surgery 2021-06 2020-10-29 /pmc/articles/PMC8217849/ /pubmed/33108850 http://dx.doi.org/10.31616/asj.2020.0117 Text en Copyright © 2021 by Korean Society of Spine Surgery https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) ) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Basic Study
Purushothaman, Yuvaraj
Choi, Hoon
Yoganandan, Narayan
Jebaseelan, Davidson
Baisden, Jamie
Kurpad, Shekar
A Comparison Study of Four Cervical Disk Arthroplasty Devices Using Finite Element Models
title A Comparison Study of Four Cervical Disk Arthroplasty Devices Using Finite Element Models
title_full A Comparison Study of Four Cervical Disk Arthroplasty Devices Using Finite Element Models
title_fullStr A Comparison Study of Four Cervical Disk Arthroplasty Devices Using Finite Element Models
title_full_unstemmed A Comparison Study of Four Cervical Disk Arthroplasty Devices Using Finite Element Models
title_short A Comparison Study of Four Cervical Disk Arthroplasty Devices Using Finite Element Models
title_sort comparison study of four cervical disk arthroplasty devices using finite element models
topic Basic Study
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8217849/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33108850
http://dx.doi.org/10.31616/asj.2020.0117
work_keys_str_mv AT purushothamanyuvaraj acomparisonstudyoffourcervicaldiskarthroplastydevicesusingfiniteelementmodels
AT choihoon acomparisonstudyoffourcervicaldiskarthroplastydevicesusingfiniteelementmodels
AT yoganandannarayan acomparisonstudyoffourcervicaldiskarthroplastydevicesusingfiniteelementmodels
AT jebaseelandavidson acomparisonstudyoffourcervicaldiskarthroplastydevicesusingfiniteelementmodels
AT baisdenjamie acomparisonstudyoffourcervicaldiskarthroplastydevicesusingfiniteelementmodels
AT kurpadshekar acomparisonstudyoffourcervicaldiskarthroplastydevicesusingfiniteelementmodels
AT purushothamanyuvaraj comparisonstudyoffourcervicaldiskarthroplastydevicesusingfiniteelementmodels
AT choihoon comparisonstudyoffourcervicaldiskarthroplastydevicesusingfiniteelementmodels
AT yoganandannarayan comparisonstudyoffourcervicaldiskarthroplastydevicesusingfiniteelementmodels
AT jebaseelandavidson comparisonstudyoffourcervicaldiskarthroplastydevicesusingfiniteelementmodels
AT baisdenjamie comparisonstudyoffourcervicaldiskarthroplastydevicesusingfiniteelementmodels
AT kurpadshekar comparisonstudyoffourcervicaldiskarthroplastydevicesusingfiniteelementmodels