Upload
azam-basheer
View
14
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
In-vivo Three-dimensional Kinematics Comparing Adjacent Segment Motion of Anterior Cervical Fusion
versus Cervical Arthroplasty in 17 PatientsVictor Chang MD; Azam Basheer MD; Stephen Bartol MD, MBA, FACS; Muwaffak Abdulhak MD; Mokbel K. Chedid MD,
FACS; Michael Bey PhD; Colin McDonald MDHenry Ford Hospital
Introduction
Cervical arthroplasty (AD) has
emerged as an alternative to
anterior cervical fusion (ACDF) for
the management of cervical
spondylosis (1, 2). This study aims
to provide three dimensional motion
analysis data comparing patients
after ACDF and AD.
Methods
10 patients who underwent C5-6
ACDF and 7 who underwent C5-6
AD were enrolled. Using bi-planar
fluoroscopy and a model based
track technique, accurate up to 0.6
mm and 0.6 degrees(3, 4), motion
analysis of axial rotation and flexion-
extension of the neck was assessed.
Three non-operative segments (C3-
4, C4-5, and C6-7) were assessed
for both inter-vertebral rotation
(coronal, sagittal, axial planes) and
facet shear (A-P and M-L).
ResultsThere was no difference in total neckmotion comparing ACDF and AD forneck extension (43.3±10.2 vs44.3±12.6 degrees, p=0.866) androtation (36.0±6.5 vs 38.2±9.3degrees, p=0.576). For extension(Figure 1), when measured as apercentage of total neck motion therewas a greater amount of rotation atthe non-operated segments in theACDF versus AD (p=0.003).Comparing specific motion segmentsgreater rotation was seen at C3-4(33.2±4.9% vs. 26.8±6.6%, p =0.036) and C6-7 (28.5±6.7% vs.20.5±5.5%, p = 0.009) but not at C4-5 (33.5±6.4% vs. 31.8±4.0%, p =0.562). For neck rotation (Figure 2)there was greater rotation at the non-operative segments in the ACDFversus AD (p=0.024), but thedifferences between individualsegments did not reach significance(p>0.146). Increased M-L facet shearwas seen on neck extension withACDF versus AD (p=0.008).Comparing each segment, C3-4(0.9±0.5 vs. 0.4±0.1mm, p = 0.039)and C4-5 (1.0±0.4 vs. 0.5±0.2mm, p= 0.022) showed increased shearwhile C6-7 (1.0±0.4 vs. 1.0±0.5mm,p = 0.767) did not.
Figure 1
Normalized motion greater at C5-6
for AD, and greater at C3-4 and C6-
7 for ACDF
Figure 2
Greater motion seen at C5-6 for
AD, no other differences
Conclusions
This study illustrates increased
motion at non-operative segments in
ACDF patients compared to AD.
Whether these changes contribute
to adjacent segment disease will
require further study.
Learning Objectives1. In-vivo three-dimensional motionanalysis can be performed on post-operative patients to assess theconsequences associated with eithercervical fusion or arthroplasty.
2. This study illustrates that there canbe an observed increase in adjacentsegment motion comparing post-ACDFwith post-AD patients.
3. Facet shear can also be measured inaddition to intervertebral rotation, andmay also be a topic of interest in thefuture.
References1.Upadhyaya CD, Wu JC, Trost G, Haid RW,Traynelis VC, Tay B, Coric D, Mummaneni PV.Analysis of the three United States Food andDrug Administration investigational deviceexemption cervical arthroplasty trials. JNeurosurg Spine 2012;16:216-218.2.Coric D, Nunley PD, Guyer RD, Musante D,Carmody CN, Gordon CR, Lauryssen C, OhnmeissDD, Boltes MO: Prospective, randomized,multicenter study of cervical arthroplasty. 269patients from the Kineflex|C artificial discinvestigational device exemption study with aminimum 2-year follow-up: clinical article. JNeurosurg Spine 2012;15:348-58.3.Bey MJ, Zauel R, Brock SK, et al. Validation ofa new model-based tracking technique formeasuring three-dimensional, in vivoglenohumeral joint kinematics. J Biomech Eng2006;128:604-94. McDonald CP, Bachison CC, Chang V, et al.Three-dimensional dynamic in vivo motion of thecervical spine: assessment of measurementaccuracy and preliminary findings. Spine J.2010;10:497-504. Epub 2010 Apr 1
Figure 1
Normalized motion greater at C5-6 for AD, and greater at C3-4 and C6-7 for ACDF
Figure 2
Greater motion seen at C5-6 for AD, no other differences