Skip to main content
Erschienen in: European Spine Journal 4/2013

01.04.2013 | Original Article

In vivo analysis of cervical kinematics after implantation of a minimally constrained cervical artificial disc replacement

verfasst von: Heiko Koller, Oliver Meier, Juliane Zenner, Michael Mayer, Wolfgang Hitzl

Erschienen in: European Spine Journal | Ausgabe 4/2013

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Introduction

To better understand cervical kinematics following cervical disc replacement (CDR), the in vivo behavior of a minimally constrained CDR was assessed.

Methods

Radiographic analysis of 19 patients undergoing a 1-level CDR from C4–5 to C6–7 (DISCOVER, Depuy-Spine, USA) was performed. Neutral–lateral and flexion–extension radiographs obtained at preop, postop and late follow-up were analyzed for segmental angle and global angle (GA C2–7). Flexion–extension range of motion was analyzed using validated quantitative motion analysis software (QMA®, Medical Metrics, USA). The FSU motion parameters measured at the index and adjacent levels were angular range of motion (ROM), translation and center of rotation (COR). Translation and COR were normalized to the AP dimension of the inferior endplate of the caudal vertebra. All motion parameters, including COR, were compared with normative reference data.

Results

The average patient age was 43.5 ± 7.3 years. The mean follow-up was 15.3 ± 7.2 months. C2–7 ROM was 35.9° ± 15.7° at preop and 45.4° ± 13.6° at follow-up (∆p < .01). Based on the QMA at follow-up, angular ROM at the CDR level measured 9.8° ± 5.9° and translation was 10.1 ± 7.8 %. Individuals with higher ROM at the CDR level had increased translation at that level (p < .001, r = 0.97), increased translation and ROM at the supra-adjacent level (p < .001, r = .8; p = .005, r = .6). There was a strong interrelation between angular ROM and translation at the supra-adjacent level (p < .001, r = .9) and caudal-adjacent level (p < .001, r = .9). The location of the COR at the CDR- and supra-adjacent levels was significantly different for the COR-X (p < .001). Notably, the COR-Y at the CDR level was significantly correlated with the extent of CDR-level translation (p = .02, r = .6). Shell angle, which may be influenced by implant size and positioning had no impact on angular ROM but was correlated with COR-X (p = .05, r = −.6) and COR-Y (p = .04, r = −.5).

Conclusion

The COR is an important parameter for assessing the ability of non-constrained CDRs to replicate the normal kinematics of a FSU. CDR size and location, both of which can impact shell angle, may influence the amount of translation by affecting the location of the COR. Future research is needed to show how much translation is beneficial concerning clinical outcomes and facet loading.
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Anakwenze OA, Auerbach JD, Milby AH, Lonner BS, Balderston RA (2009) Sagittal cervical alignment after cervical disc arthroplasty and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Spine 34:2001–2007PubMedCrossRef Anakwenze OA, Auerbach JD, Milby AH, Lonner BS, Balderston RA (2009) Sagittal cervical alignment after cervical disc arthroplasty and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Spine 34:2001–2007PubMedCrossRef
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Aretz K, Lamos N, Boyaci B, Melcher R, Harms J (2008) Discover vs PCM—comparison of the cervical prosthesis in 1-year-follow-up: global and segmental alignment, intervertebral mobility, location of prosthesis. Eur Spine J 17:1540–1633CrossRef Aretz K, Lamos N, Boyaci B, Melcher R, Harms J (2008) Discover vs PCM—comparison of the cervical prosthesis in 1-year-follow-up: global and segmental alignment, intervertebral mobility, location of prosthesis. Eur Spine J 17:1540–1633CrossRef
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Auerbach JD, Jones KJ, Fras CI, Balderston JR, Rushton SA, Chin KR (2008) The prevalence of indications and contraindications to cervical total disc replacement. Spine J 8:711–716PubMedCrossRef Auerbach JD, Jones KJ, Fras CI, Balderston JR, Rushton SA, Chin KR (2008) The prevalence of indications and contraindications to cervical total disc replacement. Spine J 8:711–716PubMedCrossRef
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Barrey C, Mosnier T, Jund J, Perrin G, Skalli W (2009) In vitro evaluation of a ball-and-socket cervical disc prothesis with cranial geometric center. J Neurosurg Spine 11:538–546PubMedCrossRef Barrey C, Mosnier T, Jund J, Perrin G, Skalli W (2009) In vitro evaluation of a ball-and-socket cervical disc prothesis with cranial geometric center. J Neurosurg Spine 11:538–546PubMedCrossRef
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Bartels R, Donk R, Verbeek ALM (2010) No justification for cervical disc protheses in clinical practice: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Neurosurgery 66:1–8 Bartels R, Donk R, Verbeek ALM (2010) No justification for cervical disc protheses in clinical practice: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Neurosurgery 66:1–8
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Barth M, Brenke C, Schmieder K (2010) Radiological outcome and intraoperative findings following explantation of 20 cervical disc prothesis. Eur Spine J 19:1963–2074 Barth M, Brenke C, Schmieder K (2010) Radiological outcome and intraoperative findings following explantation of 20 cervical disc prothesis. Eur Spine J 19:1963–2074
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Bogduk N, Mercer S (2000) Biomechanics of the cervical spine. I: normal kinematics. Clin Biomech 15:633–648CrossRef Bogduk N, Mercer S (2000) Biomechanics of the cervical spine. I: normal kinematics. Clin Biomech 15:633–648CrossRef
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Du J, Li M, Liu H, Meng H, He Q, Luo Z (2011) Early follow-up outcomes after treatment of degenerative disc disease with the discover cervical disc prosthesis. Spine J 11:281–289PubMedCrossRef Du J, Li M, Liu H, Meng H, He Q, Luo Z (2011) Early follow-up outcomes after treatment of degenerative disc disease with the discover cervical disc prosthesis. Spine J 11:281–289PubMedCrossRef
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Eck JC, Humphreys SC, Lim T-H (2002) Biomechanical study on the effect of cervical spine fusion on adjacent-level intradiscal pressure and segmental motion. Spine 27:2431–2434PubMedCrossRef Eck JC, Humphreys SC, Lim T-H (2002) Biomechanical study on the effect of cervical spine fusion on adjacent-level intradiscal pressure and segmental motion. Spine 27:2431–2434PubMedCrossRef
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Frobin W, Leivseth G, Biggemann M, Brinckmann P (2002) Sagittal plane segmental motion of the cervical spine. A new precision measurement protocol and normal motion data of healthy adults. Clin Biomech 17:21–31CrossRef Frobin W, Leivseth G, Biggemann M, Brinckmann P (2002) Sagittal plane segmental motion of the cervical spine. A new precision measurement protocol and normal motion data of healthy adults. Clin Biomech 17:21–31CrossRef
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Greiner-Perth R, Allam Y, Silbermann J, Simank H-G (2009) First experience and preliminary clinical results with the cervical disc replacement DISCOVER. Z Orthop Unfall 147:582–587PubMedCrossRef Greiner-Perth R, Allam Y, Silbermann J, Simank H-G (2009) First experience and preliminary clinical results with the cervical disc replacement DISCOVER. Z Orthop Unfall 147:582–587PubMedCrossRef
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Grob D, Porchet F, Kleinstück FS, Lattig F, Jeszenszky D, Luca A, Mutter U, Mannion AF (2009) A comparison of outcomes of cervical disc arthroplasty and fusion in everyday clinical practice: surgical and methodological aspects. Eur Spine J (E-Pub) Grob D, Porchet F, Kleinstück FS, Lattig F, Jeszenszky D, Luca A, Mutter U, Mannion AF (2009) A comparison of outcomes of cervical disc arthroplasty and fusion in everyday clinical practice: surgical and methodological aspects. Eur Spine J (E-Pub)
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Guerin P, Luc S, Bourghli A, Gille O, Obeid I, Verdier N, Vital JM (2011) Heterotopic ossification after cervical disc arthroplasty. A prospective study. Annual meeting of the CSRS-E, Istanbul Guerin P, Luc S, Bourghli A, Gille O, Obeid I, Verdier N, Vital JM (2011) Heterotopic ossification after cervical disc arthroplasty. A prospective study. Annual meeting of the CSRS-E, Istanbul
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Harrison DE, Harrison DD, Cailliet R, Troyanovic SJ, Janik TJ, Holland B (2000) Cobb method or Harrison posterior tangent method. Which to chose for lateral cervical radiographic analysis. Spine 25:2072–2078PubMedCrossRef Harrison DE, Harrison DD, Cailliet R, Troyanovic SJ, Janik TJ, Holland B (2000) Cobb method or Harrison posterior tangent method. Which to chose for lateral cervical radiographic analysis. Spine 25:2072–2078PubMedCrossRef
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Hipp JA, Wharton ND (2008) Qunatitative motion analysis (QMA) of Motion preserving and fusion technologies for the Spine. In: Yue J, Bertagnoli R, McAfee P, An H (eds) Motion Preservation Surgery of the Spine: advanced techniques and controversies, New York, Elsevier Hipp JA, Wharton ND (2008) Qunatitative motion analysis (QMA) of Motion preserving and fusion technologies for the Spine. In: Yue J, Bertagnoli R, McAfee P, An H (eds) Motion Preservation Surgery of the Spine: advanced techniques and controversies, New York, Elsevier
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Huang RC, Wright TM, Panjabi MM, Lipman JD (2005) Biomechanics of nonfusion implants. Orthop Clin North Am 36:271–280PubMedCrossRef Huang RC, Wright TM, Panjabi MM, Lipman JD (2005) Biomechanics of nonfusion implants. Orthop Clin North Am 36:271–280PubMedCrossRef
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Kang JD, Baillargeon EM, Donaldson WF, Lee JY, Anderst WJ (2010) Motion path of the intervertebral center of rotation in single-level fusion patients and asymptomatic controls during dynamic flexion-extension. Annual meeting of the CSRS-A, Charlotte Kang JD, Baillargeon EM, Donaldson WF, Lee JY, Anderst WJ (2010) Motion path of the intervertebral center of rotation in single-level fusion patients and asymptomatic controls during dynamic flexion-extension. Annual meeting of the CSRS-A, Charlotte
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Kelly MP, Mok JM, Frisch RF, Tay BK (2011) Adjacent segment motion after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion versus ProDisc-C cervical disk arthroplasty. Analysis from a randomized, controlled trial. Spine 36:1171–1179PubMedCrossRef Kelly MP, Mok JM, Frisch RF, Tay BK (2011) Adjacent segment motion after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion versus ProDisc-C cervical disk arthroplasty. Analysis from a randomized, controlled trial. Spine 36:1171–1179PubMedCrossRef
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Lebl DR, Cammisa F, Girardi FP, Lee SM, Wright T, Abjornson C (2011) Retrieval analysis of cervical total disc replacements—a study of in vivo wear, surface properties, and fixation. 18th IMAST, Copenhagen Lebl DR, Cammisa F, Girardi FP, Lee SM, Wright T, Abjornson C (2011) Retrieval analysis of cervical total disc replacements—a study of in vivo wear, surface properties, and fixation. 18th IMAST, Copenhagen
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Lee K, Goel VK (2004) Artificial disc prosthesis: design concepts and criteria. Spine J 4:209S–218SPubMedCrossRef Lee K, Goel VK (2004) Artificial disc prosthesis: design concepts and criteria. Spine J 4:209S–218SPubMedCrossRef
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Link HD, McAfee PC, Pimenta L (2004) Choosing a cervical disc replacement. Spine J 4:294–302CrossRef Link HD, McAfee PC, Pimenta L (2004) Choosing a cervical disc replacement. Spine J 4:294–302CrossRef
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Maldonado CV, Paz RD, Martin CB (2011) Adjacent-level degeneration after cervical disc arthroplasty versus fusion. Eur Spine J 20:403–407PubMedCrossRef Maldonado CV, Paz RD, Martin CB (2011) Adjacent-level degeneration after cervical disc arthroplasty versus fusion. Eur Spine J 20:403–407PubMedCrossRef
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Murrey D, Janssen M, Delamarter R, Goldstein J, Zigler J, Tay B, Darden B (2009) Results of the prospective, randomized, controlled multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study of the ProDisc-C total disc replacement versus anterior discectomy and fusion for the treatment of 1-level symptomatic cervical disc disease. Spine J 9:275–286PubMedCrossRef Murrey D, Janssen M, Delamarter R, Goldstein J, Zigler J, Tay B, Darden B (2009) Results of the prospective, randomized, controlled multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study of the ProDisc-C total disc replacement versus anterior discectomy and fusion for the treatment of 1-level symptomatic cervical disc disease. Spine J 9:275–286PubMedCrossRef
24.
Zurück zum Zitat Nabhan A, Ishak B, Steudel WI, Ramadhan S, Steimer O (2011) Assessment of adjacent-segment mobility after cervical disc replacement versus fusion: RCT with 1 year’s results. Eur Spine J (E-pub) Nabhan A, Ishak B, Steudel WI, Ramadhan S, Steimer O (2011) Assessment of adjacent-segment mobility after cervical disc replacement versus fusion: RCT with 1 year’s results. Eur Spine J (E-pub)
25.
Zurück zum Zitat Patwardhan AG, Tzermiadianos MN, Tsitsopoulos PP, Voronov LI, Renner SM, Reo ML, Carandang G, Ritter-Lang, Harvey RM (2010) Primary and coupled motions after cervical total disc replacement using a compressible six-degree-of-freedom prosthesis. Eur Spine J Suppl 5:S618–S629 Patwardhan AG, Tzermiadianos MN, Tsitsopoulos PP, Voronov LI, Renner SM, Reo ML, Carandang G, Ritter-Lang, Harvey RM (2010) Primary and coupled motions after cervical total disc replacement using a compressible six-degree-of-freedom prosthesis. Eur Spine J Suppl 5:S618–S629
26.
Zurück zum Zitat Philipps FM, Allen TR, Regan JJ, Albert TJ, Cappucino A, Devine KG, Ahrens JE, Hipp JA, McAfee Pc (2009) Cervical disc replacement in patients with and without previous adjacent level fusion surgery. Spine 34:556–565CrossRef Philipps FM, Allen TR, Regan JJ, Albert TJ, Cappucino A, Devine KG, Ahrens JE, Hipp JA, McAfee Pc (2009) Cervical disc replacement in patients with and without previous adjacent level fusion surgery. Spine 34:556–565CrossRef
27.
Zurück zum Zitat Picket GE, Rouleau JP, Duggal N (2005) Kinematic analyis of the cervical spine following implantation of an artificial cervical disc. Spine 30:1949–1954CrossRef Picket GE, Rouleau JP, Duggal N (2005) Kinematic analyis of the cervical spine following implantation of an artificial cervical disc. Spine 30:1949–1954CrossRef
28.
Zurück zum Zitat Reitman CA, Hipp JA, Nguyen L, Esses SI (2004) Changes in segmental intervertebral motion adjacent to cervical arthrodesis: a prospective study. Spine 29:E221–E226PubMedCrossRef Reitman CA, Hipp JA, Nguyen L, Esses SI (2004) Changes in segmental intervertebral motion adjacent to cervical arthrodesis: a prospective study. Spine 29:E221–E226PubMedCrossRef
29.
Zurück zum Zitat Reitman CA, Mauro KM, Nguyen L, Ziegler JM, Hipp JA (2004) Intervertebral motion between flexion and extension in asymptomatic individuals. Spine 29:2832–2843PubMedCrossRef Reitman CA, Mauro KM, Nguyen L, Ziegler JM, Hipp JA (2004) Intervertebral motion between flexion and extension in asymptomatic individuals. Spine 29:2832–2843PubMedCrossRef
30.
Zurück zum Zitat Rousseau MA, Cottin P, Levante S, Alexis N, Lazannec J-Y, Skalli W (2008) In vivo-kinematics of two types of ball-and-socket cervical disc replacements in the sagittal plane. Cranial versus caudal geometric center. Spine 33:E6–E9PubMedCrossRef Rousseau MA, Cottin P, Levante S, Alexis N, Lazannec J-Y, Skalli W (2008) In vivo-kinematics of two types of ball-and-socket cervical disc replacements in the sagittal plane. Cranial versus caudal geometric center. Spine 33:E6–E9PubMedCrossRef
31.
Zurück zum Zitat Sasso RC, Best NM (2008) Cervical kinematics after fusion and Bryan disc arthroplasty. J Spinal Disord 21:19–22CrossRef Sasso RC, Best NM (2008) Cervical kinematics after fusion and Bryan disc arthroplasty. J Spinal Disord 21:19–22CrossRef
32.
Zurück zum Zitat Sasso RC, Smucker JD, Hacker RJ (2007) Artifical disc versus fusion. A prospective, randomized study with 2-year follow-up on 99 patients. Spine 32:2933–2940PubMedCrossRef Sasso RC, Smucker JD, Hacker RJ (2007) Artifical disc versus fusion. A prospective, randomized study with 2-year follow-up on 99 patients. Spine 32:2933–2940PubMedCrossRef
33.
Zurück zum Zitat Sears W, McCombe P, Sasso R (2006) Kinematics of cervical and lumbar total disc replacement. Seminar Spine Surg 18:117–129CrossRef Sears W, McCombe P, Sasso R (2006) Kinematics of cervical and lumbar total disc replacement. Seminar Spine Surg 18:117–129CrossRef
34.
Zurück zum Zitat Snyder JT, Tzermiadianos MN, Ghanayem AJ, Voronov LI, Rinella A, Doortis A, Carandang G, Renner SM, Havey RM, Patwardhan AG (2007) Effect of uncovertebral joint excision on the motion response of the cervical spine after total disc replacement. Spine 32:2965–2969PubMedCrossRef Snyder JT, Tzermiadianos MN, Ghanayem AJ, Voronov LI, Rinella A, Doortis A, Carandang G, Renner SM, Havey RM, Patwardhan AG (2007) Effect of uncovertebral joint excision on the motion response of the cervical spine after total disc replacement. Spine 32:2965–2969PubMedCrossRef
35.
Zurück zum Zitat Suchomel P, Jurak L, Benes V, Brabec R R, Brada O, Elgawhary S (2009) Clinical results and development of heterotopic ossification in total cervical disc replacement during a 4-year follow-up. Eur Spine J (E-Pub) Suchomel P, Jurak L, Benes V, Brabec R R, Brada O, Elgawhary S (2009) Clinical results and development of heterotopic ossification in total cervical disc replacement during a 4-year follow-up. Eur Spine J (E-Pub)
36.
Zurück zum Zitat Whang PG, Simpson AK, Rechtine G, Gauer JN (2009) Current trends in spinal arthroplasty. J Spinal Disord 22:26–33CrossRef Whang PG, Simpson AK, Rechtine G, Gauer JN (2009) Current trends in spinal arthroplasty. J Spinal Disord 22:26–33CrossRef
37.
Zurück zum Zitat Wigfield C, Gill S, Nelson R (2002) Influence of an artifical cervical joint compared with fusion on adjacent-level motion in the treatment of degenerative cervical disc disease. J Neurosurg Spine 96:17–21CrossRef Wigfield C, Gill S, Nelson R (2002) Influence of an artifical cervical joint compared with fusion on adjacent-level motion in the treatment of degenerative cervical disc disease. J Neurosurg Spine 96:17–21CrossRef
38.
Zurück zum Zitat Womack W, Leahy PD, Patel VV, Puttlitz CM (2011) Finite element modeling of kinematic and load transmission alterations due to cervical intervertebral disc replacement. Spine 36:E1126–E1133PubMedCrossRef Womack W, Leahy PD, Patel VV, Puttlitz CM (2011) Finite element modeling of kinematic and load transmission alterations due to cervical intervertebral disc replacement. Spine 36:E1126–E1133PubMedCrossRef
39.
Zurück zum Zitat Zechmeister I, Winkler R, Mad P (2011) Artifical total disc replacement versus fusion for the cervical spine: a systematic review. Eur Spine J 20:177–184PubMedCrossRef Zechmeister I, Winkler R, Mad P (2011) Artifical total disc replacement versus fusion for the cervical spine: a systematic review. Eur Spine J 20:177–184PubMedCrossRef
40.
Zurück zum Zitat Zenner J, Meier O, Ferraris L, Koller H (2010) Revision and retrieval of failed cervical disc replacements. Report on characteristics and early outcomes. Annual meeting of the CSRS-A, Charlotte Zenner J, Meier O, Ferraris L, Koller H (2010) Revision and retrieval of failed cervical disc replacements. Report on characteristics and early outcomes. Annual meeting of the CSRS-A, Charlotte
Metadaten
Titel
In vivo analysis of cervical kinematics after implantation of a minimally constrained cervical artificial disc replacement
verfasst von
Heiko Koller
Oliver Meier
Juliane Zenner
Michael Mayer
Wolfgang Hitzl
Publikationsdatum
01.04.2013
Verlag
Springer-Verlag
Erschienen in
European Spine Journal / Ausgabe 4/2013
Print ISSN: 0940-6719
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-0932
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-012-2583-6

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 4/2013

European Spine Journal 4/2013 Zur Ausgabe

Arthropedia

Grundlagenwissen der Arthroskopie und Gelenkchirurgie. Erweitert durch Fallbeispiele, Videos und Abbildungen. 
» Jetzt entdecken

Update Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.