Anterior cervical discectomy with fusion (ACDF) is the common method to treat the cervical disc degeneration. The most serious problems in the fusion cages are adjacent disc degeneration, loss of lordosis, pain, subsidence, and migration of the cage. The objective of our work is to develop the three-dimensional finite element (FE) model from C3-C6 and virtually implant a designed S-type dynamic cage at C4-C5 segment of the model. The dynamic cage design will provide mobility in the early stage after ACDF surgery. Titanium (Ti) and PEEK (polyether ether ketone) were used as the material property for the cages. We applied the physiological motions at different loads from 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2.0 Nm to evaluate the dynamic cage design and the biomechanical performances of the designed S-type dynamic cage. It was observed that in all the loading condition the range of motion in the adjacent level was maintained and the maximum stress at the adjacent disc was reduced. The clinical significance of the S-type dynamic cage is better stress profile at the fusion level and adjacent segments which translates into higher rate of fusion, lower risk of cage subsidence, lower risk of adjacent segment degeneration, and good mechanical stability.
InoueNEspinoza OríasAA. Biomechanics of intervertebral disk degeneration. Orthop Clin North Am2011; 42(4): 487–499, vii.
2.
TaoYGalbuseraFNiemeyerF, et al. Radiographic cervical spine degenerative findings: a study on a large population from age 18 to 97 years. Eur Spine J2021; 30: 431–443.
3.
TchakoASadeghAM. Stress changes in intervertebral discs of the cervical spine due to partial discectomies and fusion. J Biomech Eng2009; 131(5): 051013.
VirkSQureshiSSandhuH. History of spinal fusion: where we came from and where we are going. HSS J2020; 16(2): 137–142.
6.
SongKJChoiBY. Current concepts of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a review of literature. Asian Spine J2014; 8(4): 531–539.
7.
ChongEPelletierMHMobbsRJ, et al. The design evolution of interbody cages in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a systematic review. BMC Musculoskelet Disord2015; 16(1): 99.
DmitrievAECunninghamBWHuN, et al. Adjacent level intradiscal pressure and segmental kinematics following a cervical total disc arthroplasty: an in vitro human cadaveric model. Spine2005; 30(10): 1165–1172.
10.
GoffinJGeusensEVantommeN, et al. Long-term follow-up after interbody fusion of the cervical spine. J Spinal Disord Tech2004; 17(2): 79–85.
11.
SugawaraTItohYHiranoY, et al. Long term outcome and adjacent disc degeneration after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with titanium cylindrical cages. Acta Neurochir2009; 151(4): 303–NaN9; discussion 309.
12.
KandzioraFPflugmacherRSchäferJ, et al. Biomechanical comparison of cervical spine interbody fusion cages. Spine2001; 26(17): 1850–1857.
13.
HashimotoKAizawaTKannoH, et al. Adjacent segment degeneration after fusion spinal surgery: a systematic review. Int Orthop2019; 43(4): 987–993.
14.
ElsawafAMastronardiLRopertoR, et al. Effect of cervical dynamics on adjacent segment degeneration after anterior cervical fusion with cages. Neurosurg Rev2009; 32(2): 215–224; discussion 224.
15.
LiuJTChenWCWeiHW. Biomechanical evaluation of a dynamic fusion cage design for cervical spine: a finite element study. Adv Mech Eng2017; 9(5): 1–7.
16.
ManickamPSRoySShettyGM. Biomechanical evaluation of a novel S-type, dynamic zero-profile cage design for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with variations in bone graft shape: a finite element analysis. World Neurosurg. Epub ahead of print 8July2021. DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2021.07.013.
17.
WilkeHJKettlerAClaesL. Primary stabilizing effect of interbody fusion devices for the cervical spine: an in vitro comparison between three different cage types and bone cement. Eur Spine J2000; 9(5): 410–416.
18.
BartelsRHDonkRvan AznRD. Height of cervical foramina after anterior discectomy and implantation of a carbon fiber cage. J Neurosurg Spine2001; 95(1 Suppl): 40–42.
19.
PaitTGKilleferJAArnautovicKI. Surgical anatomy of the anterior cervical spine: the disc space, vertebral artery, and associated bony structures. Neurosurg1996; 39(4): 769–776.
20.
WangJQianZRenL. Biomechanical comparison of optimal shapes for the cervical intervertebral fusion cage for C5–C6 cervical fusion using the anterior cervical plate and cage (ACPC) fixation system: a finite element analysis. Med Sci Monit Int Med J Exp Clin Res2019; 25: 8379–8388.
21.
WuTKMengYWangBY, et al. Biomechanics following skip-level cervical disc arthroplasty versus skip-level cervical discectomy and fusion: a finite element-based study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord2019; 20(1): 49.
22.
ZhangQHTeoECNgHW, et al. Finite element analysis of moment-rotation relationships for human cervical spine. J Biomech2006; 39(1): 189–193.
23.
ZhangQHTeoECNgHW. Development and validation of a CO-C7 FE complex for biomechanical study. J Biomech Eng2005; 127: 729–735.
24.
LiXFJinLYLiangCG, et al. Adjacent-level biomechanics after single-level anterior cervical interbody fusion with anchored zero-profile spacer versus cage-plate construct: a finite element study. BMC Surg2020; 20: 66.
25.
ArabAZEMerdjiABenaissaA, et al. Finite-element analysis of a lateral femoro-tibial impact on the total knee arthroplasty. Comput Methods Programs Biomed2020; 192: 105446.
26.
BiswasJKRoySPradhanR, et al. Effects of cervical disc replacement and anterior fusion for different bone conditions: a finite element study. Int J Multiscale Comput Eng2019; 17(4): 411–427.
27.
BhattacharyaSRoySRanaM, et al. Biomechanical performance of a modified design of dynamic cervical implant compared to conventional ball and socket design of an artificial intervertebral disc implant: a finite element study. J Mech Med Biol2019; 19(04): 1950017.
28.
ManickamPSRoyS. The biomechanical study of cervical spine: a finite element analysis. Int J Artif Organs 2021. Epub ahead of print 1March2021. DOI: 10.1177/0391398821995495.
29.
HilibrandASCarlsonGDPalumboMA, et al. Radiculopathy and myelopathy at segments adjacent to the site of a previous anterior cervical arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg1999; 81(4): 519–528.
30.
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.
31.
WirthFPDowdGCSandersHF, et al. Cervical discectomy: a prospective analysis of three operative techniques. Surg Neurol2000; 53(4): 340–NaN6; discussion 346.
32.
ChangUKKimDHLeeMC, 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(1): 33–39.
33.
HuangHLiuJWangL, et al. A critical review on the biomechanical study of cervical interbody fusion cage. Med Nov Technol Device2021; 11: 100070.
34.
BiswasJKRanaMMalasA, et al. Effect of single and multilevel artificial inter-vertebral disc replacement in lumbar spine: a finite element study. Int J Artif Organs 2021. Epub ahead of print 11March2021. DOI: 10.1177/03913988211001875.
35.
RanaMRoySBiswasP, et al. Design and development of a novel expanding flexible rod device (FRD) for stability in the lumbar spine: a finite-element study. Int J Artif Organs2020; 43(12): 803–810.
