Comparative biomechanical analyses of lower cervical spine post anterior fusion versus intervertebral disc arthroplasty: A geometrically patient-specific poroelastic finite element investigation.

Abstract

Background/ObjectiveThe optimal surgical technique for the treatment of cervical degenerative disc disease (CDDD) towards decreasing the risk of adjacent segment disease (ASD) remains elusive. This study aimed to comparatively investigate the biomechanics of the lower cervical spine following fusion (ACDF) and artificial disc arthroplasty (Bryan® and Prestige LP®) using a validated geometrically patient-specific poroelastic finite element modeling (FEM) approach.MethodsTen subject-specific pre-operative models were developed and validated based on a FEM approach. Poroelastic models were then constructed using post-operation images for three different treatment scenarios: ACDF; Prestige LP® and Bryan® artificial discs at the C5–C6 level. The biomechanical responses at both surgical and adjacent spinal levels were studied subject to static and cyclic loading.ResultsPostoperatively, greater range of motion (ROM), higher annulus fibrosus stress and strain values, and increased disc height and fluid loss at the adjacent levels were detected post ACDF, as compared with pre-op as well as artificial disc arthroplasty. The facet joint forces were larger for the Prestige LP® disc, particularly during extension. The lowest values in disc height and fluid exchange were observed in the Bryan® artificial disc arthroplasty models.ConclusionBiomechanical analyses revealed that ACDF poses the highest potential risk for adjacent disc degeneration. The artificial discs investigated here (Prestige LP® and Bryan®) not only preserved motion at the instrumented level, but also sustained the pre-op ROM and decreased the intradiscal pressure (IDP) and facet joint forces (FJFs) at adjacent levels, particularly during flexion/extension. The Bryan® artificial disc demonstrated the most efficacy in maintaining the natural poroelastic characteristics of adjacent discs.The translational potential of this articleThis study provided a technique for clinicians to use quantitative data towards subject-specific evaluation to comparatively evaluate the impact of ACDF and disc arthroplasty using two types of artificial discs on the biomechanics of the cervical spine. It confirms differences in the poroelastic characteristics of adjacent discs for different fixation techniques, and reveals the advantage of artificial discs with a flexible core for decreasing the risk of ASD.