Xu Hanpeng, Liu Ziwen, Yang Yuming, Miao Jun, Wang Bingjin, Yang Cao
Department of Orthopaedics, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan.
Orthopedic Clinical College, Tianjin Medical University.
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2024 Aug 15;49(16):E262-E271. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000005050. Epub 2024 May 27.
We constructed finite element (FE) models of the cervical spine consisting of C2-C7 and predicted the biomechanical effects of different surgical procedures and instruments on adjacent segments, internal fixation systems, and the overall cervical spine through FE analysis.
To compare the biomechanical effects between the zero-profile device and cage-plate device in skip-level multistage anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF).
ACDF is often considered the standard treatment for degenerative cervical spondylosis. However, the selection of surgical methods and instruments in cases of skip-level cervical degenerative disk disease is still controversial.
Three FE models were constructed, which used noncontiguous 2-level Zero-P (NCZP) devices for C3/4 and C5/6, a noncontiguous 2-level cage-plate (NCCP) for C3/4 and C5/6, and a contiguous 3-level cage-plate (CCP) for C3/6. Simulate daily activities in ABAQUS. The range of motion (ROM), von Mises stress distribution of the endplate and internal fixation system, and intervertebral disk pressure (IDP) of each model were recorded and compared.
Similar to the stress of the cortical bone, the maximum stress of the Zero-P device was higher than that of the CP device for most activities. The ROM increments of the superior, inferior, and intermediate segments of the NCZP model were lower than those of the NCCP and CCP models in many actions. In terms of the IDP, the increment value of stress for the NCZP model was the smallest, whereas those of the NCCP and CCP models were larger. Similarly, the increment value of stress on the endplate also shows the minimum in the NCZP model.
Noncontiguous ACDF with zero profile can reduce the stress on adjacent intervertebral disks and endplates, resulting in a reduced risk of adjacent segment disease development. However, the high cortical bone stress caused by the Zero-P device may influence the risk of fractures.
我们构建了包含C2 - C7的颈椎有限元(FE)模型,并通过有限元分析预测了不同手术方法和器械对相邻节段、内固定系统及整个颈椎的生物力学影响。
比较零切迹装置与椎间融合器 - 钢板装置在跳跃节段多节段颈椎前路椎间盘切除融合术(ACDF)中的生物力学影响。
ACDF常被视为退行性颈椎病的标准治疗方法。然而,在跳跃节段颈椎退行性椎间盘疾病病例中,手术方法和器械的选择仍存在争议。
构建了三个有限元模型,分别在C3/4和C5/6使用非连续2节段零切迹(NCZP)装置、在C3/4和C5/6使用非连续2节段椎间融合器 - 钢板(NCCP)以及在C3/6使用连续3节段椎间融合器 - 钢板(CCP)。在ABAQUS中模拟日常活动。记录并比较每个模型的活动范围(ROM)、终板和内固定系统的von Mises应力分布以及椎间盘压力(IDP)。
与皮质骨应力相似,在大多数活动中,零切迹装置的最大应力高于椎间融合器 - 钢板装置。在许多动作中,NCZP模型的上位、下位和中间节段的ROM增量低于NCCP和CCP模型。就IDP而言,NCZP模型的应力增量值最小,而NCCP和CCP模型的较大。同样,终板上的应力增量值在NCZP模型中也显示为最小。
采用零切迹的非连续ACDF可降低相邻椎间盘和终板上的应力,从而降低相邻节段疾病发生的风险。然而,零切迹装置引起的高皮质骨应力可能会影响骨折风险。