Biomechanical Analysis of Allograft Spacer Failure as a Function of Cortical-Cancellous Ratio in Anterior Cervical Discectomy/Fusion: Allograft Spacer Alone Model
Source abstract
Abstract
The design and ratio of the cortico-cancellous composition of allograft spacers are associated with graft-related problems, including subsidence and allograft spacer failure. Methods: The study analyzed stress distribution and risk of subsidence according to three types (cortical only, cortical cancellous, cortical lateral walls with a cancellous center bone) and three lengths (11, 12, 14 mm) of allograft spacers under the condition of hybrid motion control, including flexion, extension, axial rotation, and lateral bending,. A detailed finite element model of a previously validated, three-dimensional, intact C3–7 segment, with C5–6 segmental fusion using allograft spacers without fixation, was used in the present study. Findings: Among the three types of cervical allograft spacers evaluated, cortical lateral walls with a cancellous center bone exhibited the highest stress on the cortical bone of spacers, as well as the endplate around the posterior margin of the spacers. The likelihood of allograft spacer failure was highest for 14 mm spacers composed of cortical lateral walls with a cancellous center bone upon flexion (PVMS, 270.0 MPa; 250.2%) and extension (PVMS: 371.40 MPa, 344.2%). The likelihood of allograft spacer subsidence was also highest for the same spacers upon flexion (PVMS, 4.58 MPa; 28.1%) and extension (PVMS: 12.71 MPa, 78.0%). Conclusion: Cervical spacers with a smaller cortical component and of longer length can be risk factors for allograft spacer failure and subsidence, especially in flexion and extension. However, further study of additional fixation methods, such as anterior plates/screws and posterior screws, in an actual clinical setting is necessary.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Cervical and Thoracic Myelopathy · Spine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology · Spinal Fractures and Fixation Techniques
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul 03722, Korea
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, National Health Insurance Service Ilsan Hospital, Goyang 410719, Korea
Department of Biomedical Engineering, College of Biomedical Science & Engineering, Inje University, Gyeongnam 621749, Korea
References (48)
Show source-provided references
1. Health Care Burden of Spinal Diseases in the Republic of Korea: Analysis of a Nationwide Database From 2012 Through 201610.14245/ns.1836038.019 ↗
2. Surgery for degenerative cervical spine disease in Finland, 1999–201510.1007/s00701-019-03958-6 ↗
3. Subsidence and Nonunion after Anterior Cervical Interbody Fusion Using a Stand-Alone Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) Cage10.4055/cios.2011.3.1.16 ↗
4. Neurological Recovery Pattern in Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy after Anterior Surgery: A Prospective Study with Literature Review10.31616/asj.2018.0139 ↗
5. To Plate or Not to Plate after a Single- or Two-Level Anterior Cervical Discectomy: Fusion with Cage-Plate Construct or Stand-Alone Cage10.4184/asj.2017.11.1.1 ↗
6. Subsidence of the Wing titanium cage after anterior cervical interbody fusion: 2-year follow-up study10.3171/spi.2006.4.6.447 ↗
7. Čabraja, M., Oezdemir, S., Koeppen, D., and Kroppenstedt, S. (2012). Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: Comparison of titanium and polyetheretherketone cages. BMC Musculoskelet. Disord., 13.10.1186/1471-2474-13-172 ↗
8. Comparison of titanium and polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages in the surgical treatment of multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy: A prospective, randomized, control study with over 7-year follow-up10.1007/s00586-013-2772-y ↗
9. Bone graft substitutes in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion10.1007/s00586-008-0878-4 ↗
10. Comparison of the biomechanical stability of dense cancellous allograft with tricortical iliac autograft and fibular allograft for cervical interbody fusion10.1007/s00586-005-0047-y ↗
11. Comparison of Cortical Ring Allograft and Plate Fixation with Autologous Iliac Bone Graft for Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion10.31616/asj.2018.0174 ↗
12. Anterior cervical interbody constructs: Effect of a repetitive compressive force on the endplate10.1002/jor.21566 ↗
13. Clinical Outcomes and Finite Element Method Results of Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Using H-Beam Shaped Allospacer: A Comparison with Rim-Shaped Allospacer10.21129/nerve.2019.5.2.49 ↗
14. Biomechanical behavior of two different cervical total disc replacement designs in relation of concavity of articular surfaces: ProDisc-C® vs. Prestige-LP®10.1007/s12541-013-0107-x ↗
15. Biomechanical comparison of cervical discectomy/fusion model using allograft spacers between anterior and posterior fixation methods (lateral mass and pedicle screw)10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2020.01.018 ↗
16. Cervical spine biomechanics following implantation of a disc prosthesis10.1016/j.medengphy.2008.02.002 ↗
17. The Thickness of Human Vertebral Cortical Bone and its Changes in Aging and Osteoporosis: A Histomorphometric Analysis of the Complete Spinal Column from Thirty-Seven Autopsy Specimens10.1359/jbmr.1997.12.1.89 ↗
18. Finite element analysis of moment-rotation relationships for human cervical spine10.1016/j.jbiomech.2004.10.029 ↗
19. Finite element modeling of multi-level cervical spinal segments (C3–C6) and biomechanical analysis of an elastomer-type prosthetic disc10.1016/j.medengphy.2005.09.006 ↗
20. Design optimization of a xenogeneic bone plate and screws using the Taguchi and finite element methods10.1007/s12541-011-0149-x ↗
21. Effect of the Pedicle and Posterior Arch on Vertebral Body Strength Predictions in Finite Element Modeling10.1097/00007632-199804150-00011 ↗
22. Do design variations in the artificial disc influence cervical spine biomechanics? A finite element investigation10.1007/s00586-009-1211-6 ↗
23. Cobb Method or Harrison Posterior Tangent Method: Which to choose for lateral cervical radiographic analysis10.1097/00007632-200008150-00011 ↗
24. 3-D finite element analysis of the influence of synovial condition in sacroiliac joint on the load transmission in human pelvic system10.1016/j.medengphy.2014.01.002 ↗
25. Black, J., and Hastings, G. (1998). Handbook of Biomaterial Properties, Springer.10.1007/978-1-4615-5801-9 ↗
26. The Treatment of Certain Cervical-Spine Disorders by Anterior Removal of the Intervertebral Disc and Interbody Fusion10.2106/00004623-195840030-00009 ↗
27. Effect of follower load on motion and stiffness of the human thoracic spine with intact rib cage10.1016/j.jbiomech.2016.08.003 ↗
28. Hybrid multidirectional test method to evaluate spinal adjacent-level effects10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2006.08.006 ↗
29. Mechanical Properties of the Human Cervical Spine as Shown by Three-Dimensional Load–Displacement Curves10.1097/00007632-200112150-00012 ↗
30. Biomechanics of Sports-Induced Axial-Compression Injuries of the Neck10.4085/1062-6050-47.4.06 ↗
31. Biomechanical comparison of the angle of inserted screws and the length of anterior cervical plate systems with allograft spacers10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2020.105021 ↗
32. Risk factors for subsidence in anterior cervical fusion with stand-alone polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages: A review of 82 cases and 182 levels10.1007/s00402-014-2047-z ↗
33. Parameters that effect spine biomechanics following cervical disc replacement10.1007/s00586-011-1816-4 ↗
34. Risk factors for postoperative subsidence of single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: The significance of the preoperative cervical alignment10.1097/BRS.0000000000000400 ↗
35. Locking Stand-Alone Cage Constructs for the Treatment of Cervical Spine Degenerative Disease10.31616/asj.2018.0234 ↗
36. Bone grafts, bone substitutes and orthobiologics: The bridge between basic science and clinical advancements in fracture healing10.4161/org.23306 ↗
37. Impact of subsidence on clinical outcomes and radiographic fusion rates in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: A systematic review10.1097/BSD.0b013e31825bd26d ↗
38. Loss of cervical endplate integrity following minimal surface preparation10.1097/BRS.0b013e31811ece5a ↗
39. Finite element analysis of cage subsidence in cervicalinterbody fusion
40. Effects of new cage profiles on the improvement in biomechanical performance of multilevel anterior cervical Corpectomy and fusion: A finite element analysis10.1016/j.wneu.2019.05.037 ↗
41. Biomechanical Effect of Different Graft Heights on Adjacent Segment and Graft Segment Following C4/C5 Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Finite Element Analysis
42. Biomechanical Comparison of Optimal Shapes for the Cervical Intervertebral Fusion Cage for C5–C6 Cervical Fusion Using the Anterior Cervical Plate and Cage (ACPC) Fixation System: A Finite Element Analysis
43. A biomechanical analysis of an artificial disc with a shock-absorbing core property by using whole-cervical spine finite element analysis10.1097/BRS.0000000000001468 ↗
44. Comparison of cervical spine biomechanics after fixed-and mobile-core artificial disc replacement: A finite element analysis10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181f5cb87 ↗
45. Finite element analysis of cervical spine with different constrained types of total disc replacement10.1142/S0219519414500389 ↗
46. Recent advances in finite element modeling of the human cervical spine10.1007/s12206-017-1201-2 ↗
47. Quantitative anatomy of the endplate of the middle and lower cervical vertebrae in Koreans10.1097/BRS.0b013e318067e384 ↗
48. Differences of the Morphology of Subaxial Cervical Spine Endplates between Chinese and White Men and Women10.1155/2018/2854175 ↗