Biomechanical comparison of single- and two-level cervical arthroplasty versus arthrodesis: effect on adjacent-level spinal kinematics

Spine Journal

Volumn 10, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 341-349

  Cunningham, Bryan W ^a   Hu, Nianbin ^a   Zorn, Candace M ^a   McAfee, Paul C ^a  

^a St Joseph Medical Center   (United States)

Author keywords

Adjacent level biomechanics; Hybrid procedures; Kinematics; Motion preservation; Multilevel cervical arthroplasty

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTHRODESIS; ARTHROPLASTY; ARTICLE; BIOMECHANICS; CADAVER; CERVICAL SPINE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; KINEMATICS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SPINE SURGERY;

ARTHRODESIS; ARTHROPLASTY; BIOMECHANICS; CADAVER; CERVICAL VERTEBRAE; HUMANS; MOVEMENT; RANGE OF MOTION, ARTICULAR; ROTATION; THORACIC VERTEBRAE;

EID: 77949956229     PISSN: 15299430     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2010.01.006     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. DiAngelo D.J., Roberston J.T., Metcalf N.H., et al. Biomechanical testing of an artificial cervical joint and an anterior cervical plate. J Spinal Disord Tech 16 (2003) 314-323
2. Dmitriev A.E., Cunningham B.W., Hu N., et al. Adjacent level intradiscal pressure and segmental kinematics following a cervical total disc arthroplasty: an in vitro human cadaveric model. Spine 30 (2005) 1165-1172
3. McAfee P.C., Cunningham B., Dmitriev A., et al. Cervical disc replacement-porous coated motion prosthesis: a comparative biomechanical analysis showing the key role of the posterior longitudinal ligament. Spine 28 (2003) S176-S185
4. McAfee P.C., Cunningham B.W., Hayes V., et al. Biomechanical analysis of rotational motions after disc arthroplasty: implications for patients with adult deformities. Spine 31 19 Suppl (2006) S152-S160
5. Puttlitz C.M., and DiAngelo D.J. Cervical spine arthroplasty biomechanics. Neurosurg Clin N Am 16 (2005) 589
6. Wigfield C., Gill S., Nelson R., et al. Influence of an artificial cervical joint compared with fusion on adjacent-level motion in the treatment of degenerative cervical disc disease. J Neurosurg 96 1 Suppl (2002) 17-21
7. Chang U.K., Kim D.H., Lee M.C., et al. Changes in adjacent-level disc pressure and facet joint force after cervical arthroplasty compared with cervical discectomy and fusion. J Neurosurg Spine 7 (2007) 33-39
8. Cripton P.A., Dumas G.A., and Nolte L.P. A minimally disruptive technique for measuring intervertebral disc pressure in vitro: application to the cervical spine. J Biomech 34 (2001) 545-549
9. Eck J.C., Humphreys S.C., Lim T.H., et al. Biomechanical study on the effect of cervical spine fusion on adjacent-level intradiscal pressure and segmental motion. Spine 27 (2002) 2431-2434
10. Pospiech J., Stolke D., Wilke H.J., and Claes L.E. Intradiscal pressure recordings in the cervical spine. discussion 84-5. Neurosurgery 44 (1999) 379-384
11. Barbagallo G.M., Assietti R., Corbino L., et al. Early results and review of the literature of a novel hybrid surgical technique combining cervical arthrodesis and disc arthroplasty for treating multilevel degenerative disc disease: opposite or complementary techniques?. Eur Spine J 18 Suppl 1 (2009) 29-39
12. Datta J.C., Janssen M.E., Beckham R., and Ponce C. Sagittal split fractures in multilevel cervical arthroplasty using a keeled prosthesis. J Spinal Disord Tech 20 (2007) 89-92
13. Pimenta L., McAfee P.C., Cappuccino A., et al. Superiority of multilevel cervical arthroplasty outcomes versus single-level outcomes: 229 consecutive PCM prostheses. Spine 32 (2007) 1337-1344
14. Wigfield C.C., Skrzypiec D., Jackowski A., and Adams M.A. Internal stress distribution in cervical intervertebral discs: the influence of an artificial cervical joint and simulated anterior interbody fusion. J Spinal Disord Tech 16 (2003) 441-449
15. Panjabi M.M. Hybrid multidirectional test method to evaluate spinal adjacent-level effects. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 22 (2007) 257-265
16. Hoag J.M., Kosok M., and Moser J.R. Kinematic analysis and classification of vertebral motion. J Am Osteopath Assoc 59 (1960) 899-908 contd
17. Panjabi M.M. Biomechanical evaluation of spinal fixation devices: I. A conceptual framework. Spine 13 (1988) 1129-1134
18. Gore D.R., and Sepic S.B. Anterior discectomy and fusion for painful cervical disc disease. A report of 50 patients with an average follow-up of 21 years. Spine 23 (1998) 2047-2051
19. McAfee P.C. The indications for lumbar and cervical disc replacement. Spine J 4 6 Suppl (2004) 177S-181S
20. Pimenta L., McAfee P.C., Cappuccino A., et al. Clinical experience with the new artificial cervical PCM (Cervitech) disc. Spine J 4 6 Suppl (2004) 315S-321S
21. Maiman D.J., Kumaresan S., Yoganandan N., and Pintar F.A. Biomechanical effect of anterior cervical spine fusion on adjacent segments. Biomed Mater Eng 9 (1999) 27-38
22. Cunningham B.W., Hu N., Beatson H.J., et al. Revision strategies for single- and two-level total disc arthroplasty procedures: a biomechanical perspective. Spine J 9 (2009) 735-743
23. Baba H., Furusawa N., Imura S., et al. Late radiographic findings after anterior cervical fusion for spondylotic myeloradiculopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 18 (1993) 2167-2173
24. Anderson P.A., Eck J.C., and Puschak T.J. Adjacent segment degeneration following fusion. In: Vacarro A.R., Sasso R., Haid Jr. R., Papadopoulos S., and Traynelis V. (Eds). Spinal arthroplasty with DVD: the preservation of motion (2007), Elsevier Publishers, Amsterdam 83-94
25. Dvorak J., Panjabi M.M., Novotny J.E., and Antinnes J.A. In vivo flexion/extension of the normal cervical spine. J Orthop Res 9 (1991) 828-834
26. Dvorak J., Panjabi M.M., Grob D., et al. Clinical validation of functional flexion/extension radiographs of the cervical spine. Spine 18 (1993) 120-127
27. Patwardhan A.G., Havey R.M., Ghanayem A.J., et al. Load-carrying capacity of the human cervical spine in compression is increased under a follower load. Spine 25 (2000) 1548-1554