The effects of a semiconstrained integrated artificial disc on zygapophyseal joint pressure and displacement

Cadaveric biomechanical studies of ADDISC total lumbar disc prosthesis

BACKGROUND

Most total disc replacements provide excessive mobility and not reproduce spinal kinematics, inducing zygapophyseal joint arthritic changes and chronic back pain. In cadaveric lumbosacral spines, we studied if a new lumbar disc prosthesis kinematics mimics the intact intervertebral disc.

METHODS

In eight cold preserved cadaveric lumbosacral spines, we registered the movement ranges in flexion, extension, right and left lateral bending, and rotation in the intact status, post-discectomy, and after our prosthesis implantation, comparing them for each specimen.

FINDINGS

Comparing the intact lumbosacral spine with the L4-L5 prosthesis implanted specimens, we saw statistically significant differences in lateral bending and right rotation but not in the full range of rotation. Analyzing segments, we also noticed statistically significant differences at L4-L5 in flexion-extension and rotation. On the other hand, the L4-L5 discectomy, compared to the baseline spine condition, showed a statistically significant mobility increase in flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation, with an abnormal instantaneous center of rotation, which destabilizes the segment partly due to anterior annulus surgical removal. Disc prosthesis implantation reversed these changes in instantaneous center of rotation, but the prosthesis failed to restore the initial range of motion due to the destabilization of the ligaments in the operated disc.

INTERPRETATION

The ADDISC total disc replacement reproduces the intact disc kinematics and Instantaneous Center of Rotation, but the prosthesis fails to restore the initial range of motion due to ligament destabilization. More studies will be necessary to define a technique that restores the damaged ligaments when implanting the prosthesis.

ADDISC lumbar disc prosthesis: Analytical and FEA testing of novel implants

The intact intervertebral disc is a six-freedom degree elastic deformation structure with shock absorption. "Ball-and-socket" TDR do not reproduce these properties inducing zygapophyseal joint overload. Elastomeric TDRs reproduce better normal disc kinematics, but repeated core deformation causes its degeneration. We aimed to create a new TDR (ADDISC) reproducing healthy disc features. We designed TDR, analyzed (Finite Element Analysis), and measured every 500,000 cycles for 10 million cycles of the flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation cyclic compression bench-testing. In the inlay case, we weighted it and measured its deformation. ADDISC has two semi-spherical articular surfaces, one rotation centre for flexion, another for extension, the third for lateral bending, and a polycarbonate urethane inlay providing shock absorption. The first contact is between PCU and metal surfaces. There is no metal-metal contact up to 2000 N, and CoCr28Mo6 absorbs the load. After 10 million cycles at 1.2-2.0 kN loads, wear 140.96 mg (35.50 mm³), but no implant failures. Our TDR has a physiological motion range due to its articular surfaces' shape and the PCU inlay bumpers, minimizing the facet joint overload. ADDISC mimics healthy disc biomechanics and Instantaneous Rotation Center, absorbs shock, reduces wear, and has excellent long-term endurance.

ICR in human cadaveric specimens: An essential parameter to consider in a new lumbar disc prosthesis design

STUDY DESIGN

Biomechanical study in cadaveric specimens.

BACKGROUND

The commercially available lumbar disc prostheses do not reproduce the intact disc's Instantaneous centre of Rotation (ICR), thus inducing an overload on adjacent anatomical structures, promoting secondary degeneration.

AIM

To examine biomechanical testing of cadaveric lumbar spine specimens in order to evaluate and define the ICR of intact lumbar discs.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Twelve cold preserved fresh human cadaveric lumbosacral spine specimens were subjected to computerized tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and biomechanical testing. Kinematic studies were performed to analyse range of movements in order to determine ICR.

RESULTS

Flexoextension and lateral bending tests showed a positive linear correlation between the angle rotated and the displacement of the ICR in different axes.

DISCUSSION

ICR has not been taken into account in any of the available literature regarding lumbar disc prosthesis. Considering our results, neither the actual ball-and-socket nor the withdrawn elastomeric nucleus models fit the biomechanics of the lumbar spine, which could at least in part explain the failure rates of the implants in terms of postoperative failed back syndrome (low back pain). It is reasonable to consider then that an implant should also adapt the equations of the movement of the intact ICR of the joint to the post-surgical ICR.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first cadaveric study on the ICR of the human lumbar spine. We have shown that it is feasible to calculate and consider this parameter in order to design future prosthesis with improved clinical and biomechanical characteristics.