Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2025-7
Investigating the effects of geometrical parameters of an artificial cervical disc in vulnerable neck positions on the stress distribution in the spine using 3D finite element analysis
One of the most common diseases of the spine is the degenerative intervertebral disc, which in extreme cases requires surgery. Replacing a damaged disc with an artificial disc (AD) is a common treatment method. Nowadays, due to the extensive use of smartphones and other similar devices, our cervical spine is often in a vulnerable position, such as a bent position, which results in more stress on the components of the spine, especially intervertebral discs. In this research, the effects of geometrical parameters of an AD on the biomechanics of the cervical spine are investigated in a bent neck position, using the finite element method. In this regard, computed tomography scans of the neck of a 29-year-old male in two states of straight and bent neck are used. Nine different AD geometries are generated by varying three geometric design variables, including the height, position of the centre of rotation and rotation radius of the AD. The results of stress distribution in the spine for the straight and bent neck positions are compared, and the maximum von Mises stress on the AD and healthy discs are assessed to choose an optimum geometry. The results show that proper selection of the geometrical parameters of the AD can lead to up to an 85% reduction in the AD’s maximum von Mises stress for a bent neck position. The sensitivity analysis shows that the location of the rotation centre has the highest impact on the distribution of von Mises stress in the artificial disc.
ZhuangLWangLXuD, et al. Association between excessive smartphone use and cervical disc degeneration in young patients suffering from chronic neck pain. J Orthop Sci2021; 26: 110–115.
6.
MummaneniPVHaidR. The future in the care of the cervical spine: interbody fusion and arthroplasty: invited submission from the Joint Section Meeting on Disorders of the Spine and Peripheral Nerves, March 2004. J Neurosurg Spine2004; 1: 155–159.
7.
MoZZhaoYDuC, et al. Does location of rotation center in artificial disc affect cervical biomechanics?Spine2015; 40: E469–E475.
8.
HilibrandASRobbinsM. Adjacent segment degeneration and adjacent segment disease: the consequences of spinal fusion?Spine J2004; 4: S190–S194.
9.
LevinDAHaleJJBendoJ. Adjacent segment degeneration following spinal fusion for degenerative disc disease. Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis2007; 65: 29.
10.
ZhongZ-MZhuS-YZhuangJ-S, et al. Reoperation after cervical disc arthroplasty versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a meta-analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res2016; 474: 1307–1316.
11.
PandeyPKPawarIGuptaJ, et al. Comparison of outcomes of single-level anterior cervical discectomy with fusion and single-level artificial cervical disc replacement for single-level cervical degenerative disc disease. Spine2017; 42: E41–E49.
12.
GornetMFLanmanTHBurkusJK, et al. Cervical disc arthroplasty with the Prestige LP disc versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, at 2 levels: results of a prospective, multicenter randomized controlled clinical trial at 24 months. J Neurosurg Spine2017; 26: 653–667.
13.
BurkusJKTraynelisVCHaidRW, et al. Clinical and radiographic analysis of an artificial cervical disc: 7-year follow-up from the Prestige prospective randomized controlled clinical trial. J Neurosurg Spine2014; 21: 516–528.
14.
RaoM-JNieS-PXiaoB-W, et al. Cervical disc arthroplasty versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for treatment of symptomatic cervical disc disease: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg2015; 135: 19–28.
15.
GoelVKFaizanAPalepuV, et al. Parameters that effect spine biomechanics following cervical disc replacement. Eur Spine J2012; 21: 688–699.
16.
WomackWLeahyPDPatelVV, et al. Finite element modeling of kinematic and load transmission alterations due to cervical intervertebral disc replacement. Spine2011; 36: E1126–E1133.
17.
PengCWBYueWMBasitA, 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.
18.
LiuJEbraheimNAHamanSP, et al. How the increase of the cervical disc space height affects the facet joint: an anatomy study. Spine2006; 31: E350–E354.
19.
FaizanAGoelVKGarfinSR, et al. Do design variations in the artificial disc influence cervical spine biomechanics? A finite element investigation. Eur Spine J2012; 21(S5): 653–662.
20.
LazaroBCRYucesoyKYukselKZ, et al. Effect of arthroplasty design on cervical spine kinematics: analysis of the Bryan Disc, ProDisc-C, and Synergy disc. Neurosurg Focus2010; 28: E6.
21.
LeeS-HImY-JKimK-T, et al. Comparison of cervical spine biomechanics after fixed- and mobile-core artificial disc replacement: a finite element analysis. Spine2011; 36: 700–708.
22.
YuCCLiuPHuangD-G, et al. A new cervical artificial disc prosthesis based on physiological curvature of end plate: a finite element analysis. Spine J2016; 16: 1384–1391.
23.
LiNWeiWMiZ, et al. Quasi-static loading investigation of a 3-year-old cervical spine biomechanics. Procedia Comput Sci2019; 154: 777–782.
24.
ÖzmenRGünayM. Kinematical considerations related to prosthesis position and core radius on the biomechanics of the C5-C6 functional spinal unit. Eng Sci Technol Int J2019; 22: 786–793.
25.
PurushothamanYYoganandanNJebaseelanD, et al. External and internal responses of cervical disc arthroplasty and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a finite element modeling study. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater2020; 106: 103735.
26.
ChangLWangHGuoY, et al. Experimental and numerical analysis of biomechanical effects in cervical spine positioning rotation manipulation. Int J Numer Methods Biomed Eng2022; 38: e3651.
27.
LinMShapiroSZEngebergED, et al. Finite element analysis of the effect of dynamic plating on two-level anterior cervical discectomy fusion biomechanics. World Neurosurg2022; 163: e43–e52.
28.
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: 91–103.
29.
JiangWZhaoFRahmanWU, et al. Comparison of the effects of different artificial discs on hybrid surgery: a finite element analysis. Proc IMechE Part H: J Engineering in Medicine2024; 238: 78–89.
30.
ManickamPSRoyS. The biomechanical effects of S-type dynamic cage using Ti and PEEK for ACDF surgery on cervical spine varying loads. Int J Artif Organs2021; 44: 748–755.
31.
ManickamPSGhoshGShettyGM, et al. Biomechanical analysis of the novel S-type dynamic cage by implementation of teaching learning based optimization algorithm - an experimental and finite element study. Med Eng Phys2023; 112: 103955.
32.
YangKTeoE-CFussFK. Application of Taguchi method in optimization of cervical ring cage. J Biomech2007; 40: 3251–3256.
33.
KittipayakSPanL-FChiangF-T, et al. The optimization of the single photon emission computed tomography image quality via Taguchi analysis: a feasibility study of a V-shaped phantom. J Med Imaging Health Informat2017; 7: 143–148.
34.
ChangC-FChenC-FWangT-H, et al. Semi-quantification of the minimum detectable difference of imaging quality of gamma camera SPET for four radionuclides via an innovative PMMA phantom with a V-shaped slit: interpretation of a feasibility study. Hell J Nucl Med2019; 22: 49–57.
35.
ChenCYLiuKCChenHH, et al. Optimizing the TLD-100 readout system for various radiotherapy beam doses using the Taguchi methodology. Appl Radiat Isot2010; 68: 481–488.
36.
LinC-SChenY-FDengJIE, et al. Taguchi-based optimization of head and neck CT angiography: In-vivo enhanced triggered timing for 600 patients. J Mech Med Biol2021; 21: 2140041.
37.
PanjabiMMChenNCShinEK, et al. The cortical shell architecture of human cervical vertebral bodies. Spine2001; 26: 2478–2484.
38.
YuanWZhangHZhouX, et al. The influence of artificial cervical disc prosthesis height on the cervical biomechanics: a finite element study. World Neurosurg2018; 113: e490–e498.
39.
KarnaSKSahaiR. An overview on Taguchi method. Int J Eng Math Sci2012; 1: 1–7.
40.
BarkerJBCroninDSNightingaleRW. Lower cervical spine motion segment computational model validation: kinematic and kinetic response for quasi-static and dynamic loading. J Biomech Eng2017; 139: 061009.
41.
ClausenJDGoelVKTraynelisVC, et al. Uncinate processes and Luschka joints influence the biomechanics of the cervical spine: quantification using a finite element model of the C5-C6 segment. J Orthop Res1997; 15: 342–347.
42.
HuaWZhiJWangB, et al. Biomechanical evaluation of adjacent segment degeneration after one- or two-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion versus cervical disc arthroplasty: a finite element analysis. Comput Methods Programs Biomed2020; 189: 105352.
43.
BarkerJBCroninDS. Multilevel validation of a male neck finite element model with active musculature. J Biomech Eng2021; 143: 011004.
44.
PanjabiMMCriscoJJVasavadaA, et al. Mechanical properties of the human cervical spine as shown by three-dimensional load-displacement curves. Spine2001; 26: 2692–2700.
45.
PaulJP. Strength requirements for internal and external prostheses. J Biomech1999; 32: 381–393.
46.
KusanoTSekiTHiguchiY, et al. Preoperative canal bone ratio is related to high-degree stress shielding: a minimum 5-year follow-up study of a proximally hydroxyapatite-coated straight tapered titanium femoral component. J Arthroplasty2018; 33: 1764–1769.
