Format

Send to

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011 Aug 1;36(17):E1126-33. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31820e3dd1.

Finite element modeling of kinematic and load transmission alterations due to cervical intervertebral disc replacement.

Author information

1
Department of Mechanical Engineering and School of Biomedical Engineering, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA.

Abstract

STUDY DESIGN:

A parametric finite element investigation of the cervical spine.

OBJECTIVE:

To determine what effect, if any, cervical disc replacement has on kinematics, facet contact parameters, and anterior column loading.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA:

Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion has been a standard treatment for certain spinal degenerative disorders, but evidence suggests that fusion contributes to adjacent-segment degeneration. Motion-sparing disc replacement implants are believed to reduce adjacent-segment degeneration by preserving kinematics at the treated level. Such implants have been shown to maintain the mobility of the intact spine, but the effects on load transfer between the anterior and posterior elements remain poorly understood.

METHODS:

To investigate the effects of disc replacement on load transfer in the lower cervical spine, a finite element model was generated using cadaver-based computed tomography imagery. Mesh resolution was varied to establish model convergence, and cadaveric testing was undertaken to validate model predictions. The validated model was altered to include disc replacement prosthesis at the C4/C5 level. The effect of disc-replacement on range of motion, anteroposterior load distribution, contact forces in the facets, as well as the distribution of contact pressure on the facets were examined. Three sizes of implants were examined.

RESULTS:

Model predictions indicate that the properly sized implant retains the mobility, load sharing, and contact force magnitude and distribution of the intact case. Mobility, load sharing, nuclear pressures, and contact pressures at the adjacent motion segments were not strongly affected by the presence of the properly sized implant, indicating that disc replacement may not be a significant cause of postoperative adjacent-level degeneration. Implant size affected certain mechanical parameters, such as anteroposterior load sharing, and did not affect compliance or range of motion.

CONCLUSION:

The results of this work support the continued use of motion sparing implants in the lower cervical spine. Load sharing data indicate that implant size may be an important factor that merits further study; although, the deleterious effects of improper size selection may be less significant than those of fusion.

PMID:
21785298
DOI:
10.1097/BRS.0b013e31820e3dd1
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
    Loading ...
    Support Center