The biomechanical effects of S-type dynamic cage using Ti and PEEK for ACDF surgery on cervical spine varying loads

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Cage design cervical spine dynamic cage adjacent stress finite element analysis

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Inoue

Espinoza Orías

. Biomechanics of intervertebral disk degeneration. Orthop Clin North Am 2011; 42(4): 487–499, vii.

Tao

Galbusera

Niemeyer

, et al. Radiographic cervical spine degenerative findings: a study on a large population from age 18 to 97 years. Eur Spine J 2021; 30: 431–443.

Tchako

Sadegh

. Stress changes in intervertebral discs of the cervical spine due to partial discectomies and fusion. J Biomech Eng 2009; 131(5): 051013.

Tarpada

Morris

Burton

. Spinal fusion surgery: a historical perspective. J Orthop 2017; 14(1): 134–136.

Virk

Qureshi

Sandhu

. History of spinal fusion: where we came from and where we are going. HSS J 2020; 16(2): 137–142.

Song

Choi

. Current concepts of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a review of literature. Asian Spine J 2014; 8(4): 531–539.

Chong

Pelletier

Mobbs

, et al. The design evolution of interbody cages in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a systematic review. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2015; 16(1): 99.

Zdeblick

Phillips

. Interbody cage devices. Spine 2003; 28(15 Suppl): S2–S7.

Dmitriev

Cunningham

, et al. Adjacent level intradiscal pressure and segmental kinematics following a cervical total disc arthroplasty: an in vitro human cadaveric model. Spine 2005; 30(10): 1165–1172.

10.

Goffin

Geusens

Vantomme

, et al. Long-term follow-up after interbody fusion of the cervical spine. J Spinal Disord Tech 2004; 17(2): 79–85.

11.

Sugawara

Itoh

Hirano

, et al. Long term outcome and adjacent disc degeneration after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with titanium cylindrical cages. Acta Neurochir 2009; 151(4): 303–NaN9; discussion 309.

12.

Kandziora

Pflugmacher

Schäfer

, et al. Biomechanical comparison of cervical spine interbody fusion cages. Spine 2001; 26(17): 1850–1857.

13.

Hashimoto

Aizawa

Kanno

, et al. Adjacent segment degeneration after fusion spinal surgery: a systematic review. Int Orthop 2019; 43(4): 987–993.

14.

Elsawaf

Mastronardi

Roperto

, et al. Effect of cervical dynamics on adjacent segment degeneration after anterior cervical fusion with cages. Neurosurg Rev 2009; 32(2): 215–224; discussion 224.

15.

Liu

Chen

Wei

. Biomechanical evaluation of a dynamic fusion cage design for cervical spine: a finite element study. Adv Mech Eng 2017; 9(5): 1–7.

16.

Manickam

Roy

Shetty

. 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 8 July 2021. DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2021.07.013.

17.

Wilke

Kettler

Claes

. 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 J 2000; 9(5): 410–416.

18.

Bartels

Donk

van Azn

. Height of cervical foramina after anterior discectomy and implantation of a carbon fiber cage. J Neurosurg Spine 2001; 95(1 Suppl): 40–42.

19.

Pait

Killefer

Arnautovic

. Surgical anatomy of the anterior cervical spine: the disc space, vertebral artery, and associated bony structures. Neurosurg 1996; 39(4): 769–776.

20.

Wang

Qian

Ren

. 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 Res 2019; 25: 8379–8388.

21.

Meng

Wang

, et al. Biomechanics following skip-level cervical disc arthroplasty versus skip-level cervical discectomy and fusion: a finite element-based study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2019; 20(1): 49.

22.

Zhang

Teo

, et al. Finite element analysis of moment-rotation relationships for human cervical spine. J Biomech 2006; 39(1): 189–193.

23.

Zhang

Teo

. Development and validation of a CO-C₇ FE complex for biomechanical study. J Biomech Eng 2005; 127: 729–735.

24.

Jin

Liang

, 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 Surg 2020; 20: 66.

25.

Arab

AZE

Merdji

Benaissa

, et al. Finite-element analysis of a lateral femoro-tibial impact on the total knee arthroplasty. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 2020; 192: 105446.

26.

Biswas

Roy

Pradhan

, et al. Effects of cervical disc replacement and anterior fusion for different bone conditions: a finite element study. Int J Multiscale Comput Eng 2019; 17(4): 411–427.

27.

Bhattacharya

Roy

Rana

, 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 Biol 2019; 19(04): 1950017.

28.

Manickam

Roy

. The biomechanical study of cervical spine: a finite element analysis. Int J Artif Organs 2021. Epub ahead of print 1 March 2021. DOI: 10.1177/0391398821995495.

29.

Hilibrand

Carlson

Palumbo

, et al. Radiculopathy and myelopathy at segments adjacent to the site of a previous anterior cervical arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg 1999; 81(4): 519–528.

30.

Eck

Humphreys

Lim

, et al. Biomechanical study on the effect of cervical spine fusion on adjacent-level intradiscal pressure and segmental motion. Spine 2002; 27(22): 2431–2434.

31.

Wirth

Dowd

Sanders

, et al. Cervical discectomy: a prospective analysis of three operative techniques. Surg Neurol 2000; 53(4): 340–NaN6; discussion 346.

32.

Chang

Kim

Lee

, et al. Changes in adjacent-level disc pressure and facet joint force after cervical arthroplasty compared with cervical discectomy and fusion. J Neurosurg Spine 2007; 7(1): 33–39.

33.

Huang

Liu

Wang

, et al. A critical review on the biomechanical study of cervical interbody fusion cage. Med Nov Technol Device 2021; 11: 100070.

34.

Biswas

Rana

Malas

, 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 11 March 2021. DOI: 10.1177/03913988211001875.

35.

Rana

Roy

Biswas

, 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 Organs 2020; 43(12): 803–810.