4.5 Article

The Influence of Artificial Cervical Disc Prosthesis Height on the Cervical Biomechanics: A Finite Element Study

期刊

WORLD NEUROSURGERY
卷 113, 期 -, 页码 E490-E498

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2018.02.062

关键词

Artificial disc; Biomechanics; Cervical spine; Finite element

资金

  1. Liaoning Science and Technology Project, China [2015225014]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE: Artificial cervical disc replacement is expected to maintain normal cervical biomechanics. At present, the effect of the Prestige LP prosthesis height on cervical biomechanics has not been thoroughly studied. This finite element study of the cervical biomechanics aims to predict how the parameters, like range of motion (ROM), adjacent intradiscal pressure, facet joint force, and bone-implant interface stress, are affected by different heights of Prestige LP prostheses. METHODS: The finite element model of intact cervical spine (C3-C7) was obtained from our previous study, and the model was altered to implant Prestige LP prostheses at the C5-C6 level. The effects of the height of 5, 6, and 7 nun prosthesis replacement on ROM, adjacent intradiscal pressure, facet joint force, as well as the distribution of bone-implant interface stress were examined. RESULTS: ROM, adjacent intradiscal pressure, and facet joint force increased with the prosthesis height, whereas ROM and facet joint force decreased at C5-C6. The maximal stress on the inferior surface of the prostheses was greater than that on the superior surface, and the stresses increased with the prosthesis height. The biomechanical changes were slightly affected by the height of 5 and 6 mm prostheses, but were strongly affected by the 7-mm prosthesis. CONCLUSIONS: An appropriate height of the Prestige LP prosthesis can preserve normal ROM, adjacent intradiscal pressure, and facet joint force. Prostheses with a height of >= 2 mm than normal can lead to marked changes in the cervical biomechanics and bone-implant interface stress.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据