Biomechanical Study of Cervical Disc Arthroplasty Devices Using Finite Element Models

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuvaraj Purushothaman ◽  
Narayan Yoganandan ◽  
Davidson Jebaseelan ◽  
Hoon Choi ◽  
Jamie Baisden
Keyword(s):  
Finite Element ◽  
Biomechanical Study ◽  
Cervical Disc ◽  
Cervical Disc Arthroplasty ◽  
Finite Element Models ◽  
Disc Arthroplasty

In vitro biomechanics of cervical disc arthroplasty with the ProDisc-C total disc implant

2004 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 44-54 ◽  
Author(s):  
Denis J. DiAngelo ◽  
Kevin T. Foley ◽  
Brian R. Morrow ◽  
John S. Schwab ◽  
Jung Song ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Axial Rotation ◽  
Biomechanical Study ◽  
Cervical Disc ◽  
Cervical Disc Arthroplasty ◽  
Disc Arthroplasty ◽  
Single Level ◽  
Flexion Extension ◽  
Adjacent Segments ◽  
Treated Site

An in vitro biomechanical study was conducted to compare the effects of disc arthroplasty and anterior cervical fusion on cervical spine biomechanics in a multilevel human cadaveric model. Three spine conditions were studied: harvested, single-level cervical disc arthroplasty, and single-level fusion. A programmable testing apparatus was used that replicated physiological flexion/extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation. Measurements included vertebral motion, applied load, and bending moments. Relative rotations at the superior, treated, and inferior motion segment units (MSUs) were normalized with respect to the overall rotation of those three MSUs and compared using a one-way analysis of variance with Student–Newman–Keuls test (p < 0.05). Simulated fusion decreased motion across the treated site relative to the harvested and disc arthroplasty conditions. The reduced motion at the treated site was compensated at the adjacent segments by an increase in motion. For all modes of testing, use of an artificial disc prosthesis did not alter the motion patterns at either the instrumented level or adjacent segments compared with the harvested condition, except in extension.

Analysis of load sharing on uncovertebral and facet joints at the C5–6 level with implantation of the Bryan, Prestige LP, or ProDisc-C cervical disc prosthesis: an in vivo image-based finite element study

2010 ◽  
Vol 28 (6) ◽  
pp. E9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Heesuk Kang ◽  
Paul Park ◽  
Frank La Marca ◽  
Scott J. Hollister ◽  
Chia-Ying Lin
Keyword(s):  
Finite Element ◽  
Normal Load ◽  
Load Sharing ◽  
Cervical Disc ◽  
Cervical Disc Arthroplasty ◽  
Lateral Bending ◽  
Disc Arthroplasty ◽  
Bryan Disc ◽  
Flexion Extension ◽  
Cervical Disc Prosthesis

Object The goal of this study was to evaluate and compare load sharing of the facet and uncovertebral joints after total cervical disc arthroplasty using 3 different implant designs. Methods Three-dimensional voxel finite element models were built for the C5–6 spine unit based on CT images acquired from a candidate patient for cervical disc arthroplasty. Models of facet and uncovertebral joints were added and artificial discs were placed in the intervertebral disc space. Finite element analyses were conducted under normal physiological loads for flexion, extension, and lateral bending to evaluate von Mises stresses and strain energy density (SED) levels at the joints. Results The Bryan disc imposed the greatest average stress and SED levels at facet and uncovertebral joints with flexion-extension and lateral bending, while the ProDisc-C and Prestige LP discs transferred less load due to their rigid cores. However, all artificial discs showed increased loads at the joints in lateral bending, which may be attributed to direct impinging contact force. Conclusions In unconstrained/semiconstrained prostheses with different core rigidity, the shared loads at the joints differ, and greater flexibility may result in greater joint loads. With respect to the 3 artificial discs studied, load sharing of the Bryan disc was highest and was closest to normal load sharing with the facet and uncovertebral joints. The Prestige LP and ProDisc-C carried more load through their rigid core, resulting in decreased load transmission to the facet and uncovertebral joints.

scholarly journals Biomechanical Study of Cervical Disc Arthroplasty Devices Using Finite Element Modeling

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Narayan Yoganandan ◽  
Yuvaraj Purushothaman ◽  
Hoon Choi ◽  
Jamie Baisden ◽  
Deepak Rajasekaran ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Finite Element ◽  
Intradiscal Pressure ◽  
Cervical Disc ◽  
Cervical Disc Arthroplasty ◽  
Adjacent Segment ◽  
Lateral Bending ◽  
Disc Arthroplasty ◽  
Bryan Disc ◽  
Flexion Extension ◽  
Index Level

Abstract Many artificial discs for have been introduced to overcome the disadvantages of conventional anterior discectomy and fusion. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of different U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) on the range of motion (ROM), intradiscal pressure, and facet force variables under physiological loading. A validated three-dimensional finite element model of the human intact cervical spine (C2-T1) was used. The intact spine was modified to simulate CDAs at C5-C6. Hybrid loading with a follower load of 75 N and moments under flexion, extension, and lateral bending of 2 N·m each were applied to intact and CDA spines. From this work, it was found that at the index level, all CDAs except the Bryan disc increased ROM, and at the adjacent levels, motion decreased in all modes. The largest increase occurred under the lateral bending mode. The Bryan disc had compensatory motion increases at the adjacent levels. Intradiscal pressure reduced at the adjacent levels with Mobi-C and Secure-C. Facet force increased at the index level in all CDAs, with the highest force with the Mobi-C. The force generally decreased at the adjacent levels, except for the Bryan disc and Prestige LP in lateral bending. This study demonstrates the influence of different CDA designs on the anterior and posterior loading patterns at the index and adjacent levels with head supported mass type loadings. The study validates key clinical observations: CDA procedure is contraindicated in cases of facet arthroplasty and may be protective against adjacent segment degeneration.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document