Finite element modeling of kinematic and load transmission alterations due to cervical intervertebral disc replacement

Spine

Volumn 36, Issue 17, 2011, Pages

  Womack, Wesley ^a   Leahy, P Devin ^a   Patel, Vikas V ^b   Puttlitz, Christian M ^a  

^a Department of Mechanical Engineering   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO   (United States)

Author keywords

Cervical spine; disc replacement; finite element; kinematics; loading

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIOMECHANICS; CADAVER; CERVICAL INTERVERTEBRAL DISC REPLACEMENT; CERVICAL SPINE; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; FINITE ELEMENT MODELING; HUMAN; IMPLANT; KINEMATICS; LOAD TRANSFER; MODEL; PRESSURE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANGE OF MOTION; SPINE MOBILITY; SPINE SURGERY; VALIDATION STUDY;

EID: 85027952150     PISSN: 03622436     EISSN: 15281159     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31820e3dd1     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Diangelo DJ, Foley KT, Morrow BR, et al. In vitro biomechanics of cervical disc arthroplasty with the ProDisc-C total disc implant. Neurosurgical Focus 2004;17(3):44.
2. Nabhan A, Ahlhelm F, Pitzen T, et al. Disc replacement using Pro-Disc C versus fusion: a prospective randomised and controlled radiographic and clinical study. Eur Spine J 2007;16(3):423-30. (Pubitemid 46440185)
3. Porchet F, Metcalf NH. Clinical outcomes with the prestige II cervi-cal disc: preliminary results from a prospective randomized clinical trial. Neurosurgical Focus 2004;17(3):E6.
4. Smith H, Wimberley DW, Vaccaro AR. Cervical arthroplasty: mate-rial properties. Neurosurg Focus 2004;17:15-21.
5. Le H, Thongtrangan I, Kim DH. Historical review of cervical arthroplasty. Neurosurgical Focus 2004;17(3):1.
6. Oskouian R, Whitehill R, Samii A, et al. The future of spinal arthro-plasty: a biomaterial perspective. Neurosurg Focus 2004;17(3):E2.
7. Pickett GE, Mitsis DK, Sekhon LH, et al. Effects of a cervical disc prosthesis on segmental and cervical spine alignment. Neurosurgical Focus 2004;17(3):30-4.
8. Robertson JT, Metcalf NH. Long-term outcome after implantation of the prestige I disc in an end-stage indication: 4-year results from a pilot study. Neurosurg Focus 2004;17(3):E10.
9. Duggal N, Pickett GE, Mitsis DK, et al. Early clinical and bio-mechanical results following cervical arthroplasty Neurosurgical Focus 2004;17(3):62.
10. Katsuura A, Hukuda S, Saruhashi Y, et al. Kyphotic malalignment after anterior cervical fusion is one of the factors promoting the degenerative process in adjacent intervertebral levels. Eur Spine J 2001;10(4):320-4. (Pubitemid 32762777)
11. Sekhon LH. Cervical arthroplasty in the management of spondylot-ic myelopathy: 18-month results. Neurosurg Focus 2004;17(3):E8.
12. Eck JC, Humphreys SC, Lim TH, et al. Biomechanical study on the effect of cervical spine fusion on adjacent-level intradiscal pressure and segmental motion. Spine 2002;27(22):2431-4. (Pubitemid 35346149)
13. Shin DA, Yi S, Yoon DH, et al. Artifi cial disc replacement combined with fusion versus two-level fusion in cervical two-level disc disease. Spine 2009;34(11):1153-9.
14. Ryu KS, Park CK, Jun SC, et al. Radiological changes of the oper-ated and adjacent segments following cervical arthroplasty after a minimum 24-month follow-up: comparison between the Bryan and Prodisc-C devices. J Neurosurg: Spine 2010;13:299-307.
15. Womack W. Computational Modeling of the Lower Cervical Spine: Facet Cartilage Distribution and Disc Replacement. Unpublished Dissertation. 2009. Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO.
16. Ha SK. Finite element modeling of multi-level cervical spinal segments (C3-C6) and biomechanical analysis of an elastomer-type prosthetic disc. Med Eng Phys 2006;28(6):534-41.
17. Rho JY, Hobatho MC, Ashman RB. Relations of mechanical properties to density and CT numbers in human bone. Med Eng Phys 1995;17(5):347-55.
18. Bowden AE, Guerin HL, Villarraga ML, et al. Quality of motion considerations in numerical analysis of motion restoring implants of the spine. Clin Biomech 2008;23(5):536-44.
19. Yoganandan N, Kumaresan S, Voo L, et al. Finite element applica-tions in human cervical spine modeling. Spine 1996;21(15):1824-34. (Pubitemid 26260302)
20. Schinagl RM, Gurskis D, Chen AC, et al. Depth-dependent confi ned compression modulus of full-thickness bovine articular cartilage. J Orthop Res 1997;15(4):499-506. (Pubitemid 27433362)
21. Womack W, Woldtvedt D, Puttlitz CM. Lower cervical spine facet cartilage thickness mapping. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2008; 16(9):1018-23.
22. Yoganandan N, Knowles SA, Maiman DJ, et al. Anatomic study of the morphology of human cervical facet joint. Spine 2003;28(20):2317-23. (Pubitemid 37271326)
23. Klisch SM. A bimodular theory for fi nite deformations: compari-son of orthotropic second-order and exponential stress constitutive equations for articular cartilage. Biomech Modeling Mechanobiol 2006;5(2):90-101. (Pubitemid 43787092)
24. Mercer SR, Jull GA. Morphology of the cervical intervertebral disc: implications for mckenzie'S model of the disc derangement syn-drome. Manual Ther 1996;1(2):76.
25. Pooni JS, Hukins DW, Harris PF, et al. Comparison of the structure of human intervertebral disks in the cervical, thoracic and lumbar regions of the spine. Surg Rad Anat 1986;8(3):175-82. (Pubitemid 17114239)
26. Horton WG. Further observations on the elastic mechanism of the intervertebral disc. J Bone Jt Surg. Br Volume 1958;40(3):552-7.
27. Hsu EW, Setton LA. Diffusion tensor microscopy of the interverte-bral disc anulus fi brosus. Magn Reson Med 1999;41(5):992-9. (Pubitemid 29211143)
28. Fagan MJ, Julian S, Siddall DJ, et al. Patient-specifi c spine mod-els. Part 1: fi nite element analysis of the lumbar intervertebral disc\A material sensitivity study. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Part H, J Eng Med 2002;216(5):299-314.
29. Natarajan RN, Williams JR, Andersson GB. Recent advances in analytical modeling of lumbar disc degeneration. Spine 2004;29(23):2733-41. (Pubitemid 40353259)
30. Guo Z, Peng X, Moran B. Large deformation response of a hyperelastic fi bre reinforced composite: theoretical model and numerical validation. Composites. Part A, Appl Sci Manufacturing 2007;38(8):1842-51. (Pubitemid 47059019)
31. Wagner DR, Lotz JC. Theoretical model and experimental results for the nonlinear elastic behavior of human annulus fi brosus. J Orthop Res 2004;22(4):901-9. (Pubitemid 38756276)
32. Keller TS, Colloca CJ, Harrison DE, et al. Infl uence of spine mor-phology on intervertebral disc loads and stresses in asymptomatic adults: implications for the ideal spine. Spine J 2005;5(3):297.
33. Yoganandan N, Kumaresan S, Pintar FA. Biomechanics of the cervical spine. Part 2. Cervical spine soft tissue responses and biomechanical modeling. Clin Biomech 2001;16(1):1-27.
34. Nachemson AL, Evans JH. Some mechanical properties of the third human lumbar interlaminar ligament (ligamentum fl avum). J Biomech 1968;1(3):211-20.
35. Chang UK, Kim DH, Lee MC, et al. Range of motion change af-ter cervical arthroplasty with ProDisc-C and prestige artifi cial discs compared with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. J Neurosurg Spine 2007;7(1):40-6. (Pubitemid 47067738)
36. Hartwig E, Kettler A, Schultheiss M, et al. In vitro low-speed side collisions cause injury to the lower cervical spine but do not damage alar ligaments. Eur Spine J 2004;13(7):590-7. (Pubitemid 40022339)
37. Panjabi MM, Summers DJ, Pelker RR, et al. Three-dimensional load-displacement curves due to forces on the cervical spine. J Orthop Res 1986;4(2):152-61. (Pubitemid 16025827)
38. Puttlitz CM, Rousseau MA, Xu Z, et al. Intervertebral disc re-placement maintains cervical spine kinetics. Spine 2004;29(24): 2809-14.
39. Richter M, Wilke HJ, Kluger P, et al. Load-displacement properties of the normal and injured lower cervical spine in vitro. Eur Spine J 2000;9(2):104-8.
40. Lazaro BC, Yucesoy K, Yuksel KZ, et al. Effect of arthroplasty design on cervical spine kinematics: analysis of the Bryan Disc, ProDisc-C, and Synergy Disc. Neurosurg Focus 2010;28(6):E6.
41. Urbina A, Paez TL, Rutherford B, et al. Validation of mathematical models: an overview of the process. Proc 2005 SEM Annu Conf Exposition Exp Appl Mech 2005;955-66. (Pubitemid 43195172)
42. Anakwenze OA, Auerbach JD, Milby AH, et al. Sagittal cervi-cal alignment after cervical disc arthroplasty and anterior cervi-cal discectomy and fusion: results of a prospective, randomized. Controlled Trial 2009;34(19):2001-7.
43. Durbhakula MM, Ghiselli G. Cervical total disc replacement, part I: rationale, biomechanics, and implant types. Orthop Clin N Am 2005;36(3):349-54. (Pubitemid 40805095)
44. Chang UK, Kim DH, Lee MC, et al. Changes in adjacent-level disc pressure and facet joint force after cervical arthroplasty com-pared with cervical discectomy and fusion. J Neurosurg Spine 2007;7(1):33-39. (Pubitemid 47067737)