In recent years, artificial cervical discs have been used in intervertebral disc replacement surgery and hybrid surgery (HS). The advantages and disadvantages of different artificial cervical discs in artificial cervical disc replacement surgery have been compared. However, few scholars have studied the biomechanical effects of various artificial disc prostheses on the human cervical spine in HS which include the Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion (ACDF) and Cervical Disc Arthroplasty (CDA). This study compared the biomechanical behavior of Mobi-C and Prestige LP in the operative and adjacent segments during two-level hybrid surgery. A three-dimensional finite element model of C2–C7 was first established and validated. Subsequently, clinical surgery was then simulated to establish a surgical model of anterior cervical fusion at the C4–C5 level. Mobi-C and Prestige-LP artificial disc prostheses were implanted at the C5–C6 level to create two hybrid models. All finite element models were fixed on the lower endplate of the C7 vertebra and subjected to a load of 73.6 N and different directions of 1 Nm torque on the odontoid process of the C2 vertebra to simulate human flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation. This paper compares the ROM, intervertebral pressure, and facet joint force after hybrid surgery with the intact model. The results show that compared with Prestige LP, Mobi-C can improve ROM of the replacement segment and compensate for the intervertebral pressure of the adjacent segment more effectively, but the facet joint pressure of the replacement segment may be higher.
MatsumotoMOkadaEIchiharaD, et al. Adjacent segment disease and degeneration after anterior cervical decompression and fusion. Neurosurg Q2010; 20(1): 15–22.
2.
ParkDKLinELPhillipsFM.Index and adjacent level kinematics after cervical disc replacement and anterior fusion: in vivo quantitative radiographic analysis. Spine2011; 36(9): 721–730.
3.
KimSWLimsonMAKimSB, 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.
SassoRCSmuckerJDHackerRJ, et al. Artificial disc versus fusion: a prospective, randomized study with 2-year follow-up on 99 patients. Spine2007; 32(26): 2933–2940.
6.
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.
7.
LatkaDKozlowskaKMiekisiakG, et al. Safety and efficacy of cervical disc arthroplasty in preventing the adjacent segment disease: a meta-analysis of mid-to long-term outcomes in prospective, randomized, controlled multicenter studies. Ther Clin Risk Manag2019; 15: 531–539.
8.
ZechmeisterIWinklerRMadP.Artificial total disc replacement versus fusion for the cervical spine: a systematic review. Eur Spine J2011; 20: 177–184.
9.
KimSWShinJHArbatinJJ, et al. Effects of a cervical disc prosthesis on maintaining sagittal alignment of the functional spinal unit and overall sagittal balance of the cervical spine. Eur Spine J2008; 17: 20–29.
10.
SearsWRDuggalNSekhonLH, et al. Segmental malalignment with the Bryan cervical disc prosthesis—contributing factors. Clin Spine Surg2007; 20(2): 111–117.
11.
LiuBZengZVan HoofT, et al. Comparison of hybrid constructs with 2-level artificial disc replacement and 2-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for surgical reconstruction of the cervical spine: a kinematic study in whole cadavers. Med Sci Monit2015; 21: 1031.
12.
ShiJSLinBXueC, et al. Clinical and radiological outcomes following hybrid surgery in the treatment of multi-level cervical spondylosis: over a 2-year follow-up. J Orthop Surg Res2015; 10(1): 1–6.
13.
GrassoG.Clinical and radiological features of hybrid surgery in multilevel cervical degenerative disc disease. Eur Spine J2015; 24: 842–848.
14.
ChungTTHuengDYLinSC.Hybrid strategy of two-level cervical artificial disc and intervertebral cage: biomechanical effects on tissues and implants. Medicine2015; 94(47): e2048.
15.
RongXWangBDingC, et al. The biomechanical impact of facet tropism on the intervertebral disc and facet joints in the cervical spine. Spine J2017; 17(12): 1926–1931.
16.
RahmanWUJiangWWangG, et al. Numerical investigation on the stability of human upper cervical spine (C1–C3). Biomed Mater Eng2022; 33(3): 169–181.
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.
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 Engin2023; 26(7): 820–834.
19.
WheeldonJAStemperBDYoganandanN, et al. Validation of a finite element model of the young normal lower cervical spine. Ann Biomed Eng2008; 36: 1458–1469.
20.
RahmanWUJiangWZhaoF, et al. Biomechanical analysis of single- and double-level cervical disc arthroplasty using finite element modeling. Proc IMechE, Part H: J Engineering in Medicine2023; 237(1): 91–103.
21.
LeeSHImYJKimKT, et al. Comparison of cervical spine biomechanics after fixed- and mobile-core artificial disc replacement: a finite element analysis. Spine2011; 36(9): 700–708.
22.
LiYFogelGRLiaoZ, et al. Prosthesis and hybrid strategy consideration for treating two-level cervical disc degeneration in hybrid surgery. Spine2018; 43(6): 379–387.
23.
SchwerLE.Guide for verification and validation in computational solid mechanics. J Strain Anal Eng Des2009; 44(4): 215–224.
24.
VicecontiMOlsenSNolteLP, et al. Extracting clinically relevant data from finite element simulations. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)2005; 20(5): 451–454.
25.
LiYFogelGRLiaoZ, et al. Biomechanical analysis of two-level cervical disc replacement with a stand-alone U-shaped disc implant. Spine2017; 42(20): E1173–E1181.
26.
PanjabiMMCriscoJJVasavadaA, et al. Mechanical properties of the human cervical spine as shown by three-dimensional load-displacement curves. Spine2001; 26(24): 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(7): 915–921.
28.
YoganandanNPurushothamanYChoiH, et al. Biomechanical study of cervical disc arthroplasty devices using finite element modeling. J Eng Sci Med Diagn Ther2021; 4(2): 021004.
29.
ShenYWYangYLiuH, et al. Biomechanical evaluation of intervertebral fusion process after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a finite element study. Front Bioeng Biotechnol2022; 10: 866.
30.
XiaXPChenHLChengHB.Prevalence of adjacent segment degeneration after spine surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Spine2013; 38(7): 597–608.
31.
LiXLvZYinH, et al. Impact of adjacent pre-existing disc degeneration status on its biomechanics after single-level anterior cervical interbody fusion. Comput Methods Programs Biomed2021; 209: 106355.
32.
HeyHWDHongCCLongAS, et al. Is hybrid surgery of the cervical spine a good balance between fusion and arthroplasty? Pilot results from a single surgeon series. Eur Spine J2013; 22: 116–122.
33.
XieYMZhengYCQiuSJ, et al. The appropriate hybrid surgical strategy in three-level cervical degenerative disc disease: a finite element analysis. J Orthop Surg Res2019; 14: 1–10.
34.
WangXFMengYLiuH, et al. Surgical strategy used in multilevel cervical disc replacement and cervical hybrid surgery: four case reports. World J Clin Cases2020; 8(17): 3890.
35.
EckJCHumphreysSCLimTH, et al. Biomechanical study on the effect of cervical spine fusion on adjacent-level intradiscal pressure and segmental motion. Spine2002; 27(22): 2431–2434.
36.
YangXDonkRArtsMP, et al. Maintaining range of motion after cervical discectomy does not prevent adjacent segment degeneration. Spine J2019; 19(11): 1816–1823.
37.
VergroesenPPAKingmaIEmanuelKS, et al. Mechanics and biology in intervertebral disc degeneration: a vicious circle. Osteoarthritis Cartilage2015; 23(7): 1057–1070.
38.
PurushothamanYChoiHYoganandanN, et al. A comparison study of four cervical disk arthroplasty devices using finite element models. Asian Spine J2021; 15(3): 283.
