Recently, many different types of artificial discs have been introduced to persevere the biomechanical behavior of the cervical spine. This study compares the biomechanical behavior of single- and double-level cervical disc arthroplasty, that is “Prestige LP and Mobi-C” on the index and adjacent segment. A three-dimension finite element model of C2-C7 was developed and validated. In single-level prostheses, the Prestige LP or Mobi-C was implanted in the segment C5-C6, while the double-level arthroplasty was integrated at both segments C4-C5 and C5-C6 in the FE model. The intact FE and prosthesis-modified models were constrained from the inferior endplate of the vertebra C7 and applied a compressive load of 73.6 N with a moment load of 1 Nm on the odontoid process of the vertebra C2 to produce flexion/extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation. The prosthesis-modified model’s range of motion and intradiscal pressure were determined and compared to the intact model. Also examined the impact of the prostheses on the stress at the bone-implant interface. The range of motion of the implanted segments in both single- and double-levels arthroplasty was increased while that of the adjacent segment of implanted segments decreased. The intradiscal pressure in both levels of arthroplasty was greater than in the intact model. In conclusion, Mobi-C’s cervical prostheses could better preserve the normal range of motion and maintain intradiscal pressure than the Prestige LP.
RaoRDGoreDRTangS-J, et al. Radiographic changes in the cervical spine following anterior arthrodesis: a long-term analysis of 166 patients. J Bone Joint Surg2016; 98: 1606–1613.
2.
EckJCHumphreysSCLimT-H, et al. Biomechanical study on the effect of cervical spine fusion on adjacent-level intradiscal pressure and segmental motion. Spine2002; 27: 2431–2434.
3.
KimSWLimsonMAKimS-B, et al. Comparison of radiographic changes after ACDF versus Bryan disc arthroplasty in single and bi-level cases. Eur Spine J2009; 18: 218–231.
4.
LevenDMeaikeJRadcliffK, et al. Cervical disc replacement surgery: indications, technique, and technical pearls. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med2017; 10: 160–169.
5.
HilibrandASRobbinsM.Adjacent segment degeneration and adjacent segment disease: the consequences of spinal fusion?Spine J2004; 4: 190S–194S.
6.
SassoRCSmuckerJDHackerRJ, et al. Artificial disc versus fusion: a prospective, randomized study with 2-year follow-up on 99 patients. Spine2007; 32: 2933–2941.
7.
ZhangXZhangXChenC, et al. Randomized, controlled, multicenter, clinical trial comparing BRYAN cervical disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical decompression and fusion in China. Spine2012; 37: 433–438.
8.
GoelVKFaizanAPalepuV, et al. Parameters that effect spine biomechanics following cervical disc replacement. Eur Spine J2012; 21: S688–S699.
9.
WomackWLeahyPDPatelVV, et al. Finite element modeling of kinematic and load transmission alterations due to cervical intervertebral disc replacement. Spine2011; 36: E1126–E1133.
10.
PengCWYueWMBasitA, et al. Intermediate results of the prestige LP cervical disc replacement: clinical and radiological analysis with minimum two-year follow-up. Spine2011; 36: E105–E111.
11.
LiuJEbraheimNAHamanSP, et al. How the increase of the cervical disc space height affects the facet joint: an anatomy study. Spine2006; 31: E350–E354.
12.
WheeldonJAPintarFAKnowlesS, et al. Experimental flexion/extension data corridors for validation of finite element models of the young, normal cervical spine. J Biomech2006; 39: 375–380.
13.
LazaroBCYucesoyKYukselKZ, et al. Effect of arthroplasty design on cervical spine kinematics: analysis of the Bryan Disc, ProDisc-C, and Synergy disc. Neurosurg Focus2010; 28: E6.
14.
LeeSHImYJKimKT, et al. Comparison of cervical spine biomechanics after fixed- and mobile-core artificial disc replacement: a finite element analysis. Spine2011; 36: 700–708.
15.
RahmanWUJiangWZhaoF, et al. Biomechanical effect of C5-C6 intervertebral disc degeneration on the human lower cervical spine (C3-C7): a finite element study. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Eng2022; 25: 1–15.
16.
RongXWangBDingC, et al. The biomechanical impact of facet tropism on the intervertebral disc and facet joints in the cervical spine. Spine J2017; 17: 1926–1931.
17.
Suarez-EscobarMRendon-VelezE.A survey on static and quasi-static finite element models of the human cervical spine. Int J Interact Des Manuf2018; 12: 741–765.
18.
CaiX-YSangDYuchiC-X, et al. Using finite element analysis to determine effects of the motion loading method on facet joint forces after cervical disc degeneration. Comput Biol Med2020; 116: 103519.
19.
RahmanWUJiangWWangG, et al. Numerical investigation on the stability of human upper cervical spine (C1-C3). Biomed Mater Eng2022; 33: 169–181
20.
WangXDFengMSHuYC.Establishment and finite element analysis of a three-dimensional dynamic model of upper cervical spine instability. Orthop Surg2019; 11: 500–509.
21.
PurushothamanYChoiHYoganandanN, et al. Biomechanical study of cervical disc arthroplasty devices using finite element models. In: ASME international mechanical engineering congress and exposition, 2020, p.V005T005A034. New York: American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
22.
LinC-YKangHRouleauJP, et al. Stress analysis of the interface between cervical vertebrae end plates and the Bryan, prestige LP, and ProDisc-C cervical disc prostheses: an in vivo image-based finite element study. Spine2009; 34: 1554–1560.
23.
ChoiHPurushothamanYBaisdenJ, et al. Unique biomechanical signatures of Bryan, Prodisc C, and prestige LP cervical disc replacements: a finite element modelling study. Eur Spine J2020; 29: 2631–2639.
24.
BellKMYanYHartmanRA, et al. Influence of follower load application on moment-rotation parameters and intradiscal pressure in the cervical spine. J Biomech2018; 76: 167–172.
25.
YoganandanNPurushothamanYChoiH, et al. Biomechanical study of cervical disc arthroplasty devices using finite element modeling. J Eng Sci Med Diagn Ther2021; 4: 021004.
26.
PanjabiMMCriscoJJVasavadaA, et al. Mechanical properties of the human cervical spine as shown by three-dimensional load-displacement curves. Spine2001; 26: 2692–2700.
27.
ErbulutDUZafarparandehILazogluI, et al. Application of an asymmetric finite element model of the C2-T1 cervical spine for evaluating the role of soft tissues in stability. Med Eng Phys2014; 36: 915–921.
28.
GandhiAAKodeSDeVriesNA, et al. Biomechanical analysis of cervical disc replacement and fusion using single level, two level, and hybrid constructs. Spine2015; 40: 1578–1585.
29.
SunCLiYFengR, et al. Study on biomechanical analysis of two-level cervical Mobi-C and arthrodesis. Am J Transl Res2021; 13: 12714.
30.
GaoYLiuMLiT, et al. A meta-analysis comparing the results of cervical disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for the treatment of symptomatic cervical disc disease. J Bone Joint Surg2013; 95: 555–561.
31.
FindlayCAyisSDemetriadesAK.Total disc replacement versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a systematic review with meta-analysis of data from a total of 3160 patients across 14 randomized controlled trials with both short- and medium- to long-term outcomes. Bone Joint J2018; 100-B: 991–1001.
32.
AlvinMDAbbottEELubelskiD, et al. Cervical arthroplasty: a critical review of the literature. Spine J2014; 14: 2231–2245.
33.
RousseauM-ABonnetXSkalliW.Influence of the geometry of a ball-and-socket intervertebral prosthesis at the cervical spine: a finite element study. Spine2008; 33: E10–E14.
34.
FaizanAGoelVKGarfinSR, et al. Do design variations in the artificial disc influence cervical spine biomechanics? A finite element investigation. Eur Spine J2012; 21: S653–S662.
35.
LiYZhangZLiaoZ, et al. Finite element analysis of influence of axial position of center of rotation of a cervical total disc replacement on biomechanical parameters: simulated 2-level replacement based on a validated model. World Neurosurg2017; 106: 932–938.
36.
YangXDonkRArtsMP, et al. Maintaining range of motion after cervical discectomy does not prevent adjacent segment degeneration. Spine J2019; 19: 1816–1823.
37.
LeeJHParkWMKimYH, et al. A biomechanical analysis of an artificial disc with a shock-absorbing core property by using whole-cervical spine finite element analysis. Spine2016; 41: E893–E901.
38.
ChangU-KKimDHLeeMC, et al. Changes in adjacent-level disc pressure and facet joint force after cervical arthroplasty compared with cervical discectomy and fusion. J Neurosurg Spine2007; 7: 33–39.
39.
DmitrievAECunninghamBWHuN, et al. Adjacent level intradiscal pressure and segmental kinematics following A cervical total disc arthroplasty: an: in vitro: human cadaveric model. Spine2005; 30: 1165–1172.
40.
WelkeBSchwarzeMHurschlerC, et al. In vitro investigation of a new dynamic cervical implant: comparison to spinal fusion and total disc replacement. Eur Spine J2016; 25: 2247–2254.
41.
VolkheimerDMalakoutianMOxlandTR, et al. Limitations of current in vitro test protocols for investigation of instrumented adjacent segment biomechanics: critical analysis of the literature. Eur Spine J2015; 24: 1882–1892.
42.
PickettGESekhonLHSearsWR, et al. Complications with cervical arthroplasty. J Neurosurg Spine2006; 4: 98–105.
43.
HackerFMBabcockRMHackerRJ.Very late complications of cervical arthroplasty: results of 2 controlled randomized prospective studies from a single investigator site. Spine2013; 38: 2223–2226.
