19 Harley St, London, W1G 9QJ, UK

Comparative fixation methods of cervical disc arthroplasty versus conventional methods of anterior cervical arthrodesis: serration, teeth, keels, or screws?

OBJECT: Using a synthetic vertebral model, the authors quantified the comparative fixation strengths and failure mechanisms of 6 cervical disc arthroplasty devices versus 2 conventional methods of cervical arthrodesis, highlighting biomechanical advantages of prosthetic endplate fixation properties. METHODS: Eight cervical implant configurations were evaluated in the current investigation: 1) PCM Low Profile; 2) PCM V-Teeth; 3) PCM Modular Flange; 4) PCM Fixed Flange; 5) Prestige LP; 6) Kineflex/C disc; 7) anterior cervical plate + interbody cage; and 8) tricortical iliac crest. All PCM treatments contained a serrated implant surface (0.4 mm). The PCM V-Teeth and Prestige contained 2 additional rows of teeth, which were 1 mm and 2 mm high, respectively. The PCM Modular and Fixed Flanged devices and anterior cervical plate were augmented with 4 vertebral screws. Eight pullout tests were performed for each of the 8 conditions by using a synthetic fixation model consisting of solid rigid polyurethane foam blocks. Biomechanical testing was conducted using an 858 Bionix test system configured with an unconstrained testing platform. Implants were positioned between testing blocks, using a compressive preload of -267 N. Tensile load-to-failure testing was performed at 2.5 mm/second, with quantification of peak load at failure (in Newtons), implant surface area (in square millimeters), and failure mechanisms. RESULTS: The mean loads at failure for the 8 implants were as follows: 257.4 +/- 28.54 for the PCM Low Profile; 308.8 +/- 15.31 for PCM V-Teeth; 496.36 +/- 40.01 for PCM Modular Flange; 528.03+/- 127.8 for PCM Fixed Flange; 306.4 +/- 31.3 for Prestige LP; 286.9 +/- 18.4 for Kineflex/C disc; 635.53 +/- 112.62 for anterior cervical plate + interbody cage; and 161.61 +/- 16.58 for tricortical iliac crest. The anterior plate exhibited the highest load at failure compared with all other treatments (p < 0.05). The PCM Modular and Fixed Flange PCM constructs in which screw fixation was used exhibited higher pullout loads than all other treatments except the anterior plate (p < 0.05). The PCM VTeeth and Prestige and Kineflex/C implants exhibited higher pullout loads than the PCM Low Profile and tricortical iliac crest (p < 0.05). Tricortical iliac crest exhibited the lowest pullout strength, which was different from all other treatments (p < 0.05). The surface area of endplate contact, measuring 300 mm(2) (PCM treatments), 275 mm(2) (Prestige LP), 250 mm(2) (Kineflex/C disc), 180 mm(2) (plate + cage), and 235 mm(2) (tricortical iliac crest), did not correlate with pullout strength (p > 0.05). The PCM, Prestige, and Kineflex constructs, which did not use screw fixation, all failed by direct pullout. Screw fixation devices, including anterior plates, led to test block fracture, and tricortical iliac crest failed by direct pullout. CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate a continuum of fixation strength based on prosthetic endplate design. Disc arthroplasty constructs implanted using vertebral body screw fixation exhibited the highest pullout strength. Prosthetic endplates containing toothed ridges (>or= 1 mm) or keels placed second in fixation strength, whereas endplates containing serrated edges exhibited the lowest fixation strength. All treatments exhibited greater fixation strength than conventional tricortical iliac crest. The current study offers insights into the benefits of various prosthetic endplate designs, which may potentially improve acute fixation following cervical disc arthroplasty

Keywords : Arthrodesis,Arthroplasty,Arthroplasty,Replacement,Baltimore,Biomechanical Phenomena,Bone Screws,Cervical Vertebrae,Equipment Design,Equipment Failure Analysis,Humans,instrumentation,Intervertebral Disc,Maryland,Mechanical Phenomena,methods,Models,Biological,Polyurethanes,Prostheses and Implants,Spinal Fusion,surgery,, Fixation,Methods,Cervical,Disc, jaw joint pain

Date of Publication : 2010 Feb

Authors : Cunningham BW;Hu N;Zorn CM;McAfee PC;

Organisation : Orthopaedic Spinal Research Laboratory, St Joseph Medical Center, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. bcspine@gmail.com

Journal of Publication : J Neurosurg Spine

Pubmed Link : https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20121359

The London Spine Unit : Harley Street UK. Specialists in Cutting Edge Technologies for Spinal Surgery

Make an Appointment 

Trustpilot Reviews
Doctify Reviews
Top Doctor Reviews

Comparative fixation methods of cervical disc arthroplasty versus conventional methods of anterior cervical arthrodesis serration, teeth, keels, or screws? | Osteolysis and complications associated with artificial disc replacement

What our patients say ...

Consultant Spine Surgeon
Consultant Spine Surgeon
Consultant Spine Surgeon

This surgical technique consists of a percutaneous approach for the treatment of small to medium size hernias of the intervertebral disc by laser energy. The main objective is to reduce the intradiscal pressure in the nucleus pulposus

Laser Disc Surgery can be performed under local anaesthetic as a day case at our centre on the prestigious Harley Street.
What is London spine unit and How it Works

The London Spine Unit was established in 2005 and has successfully treated over 5000 patients. All conditions are treated.

treatment of all spinal disorders

The London Spine Unit specialises in Minimally Invasive Treatments allowing rapid recovery and return to normal function

Trusted by patients worldwide

The London Spine Unit provides the highest quality care to all patients and has VIP services for those seeking exceptional services

If you have any emergency Doctor’s need, simply call our 24 hour emergency

Your personal case manager will ensure that you receive the best possible care.

Call Now 

+44 844 589 2020
+44 203 973 8810