A. Kettler et al., Effects of neck movements on stability and subsidence in cervical interbody fusion: an in vitro study, J NEUROSURG, 94(1), 2001, pp. 97-107
Object. The aim of this in vitro study was to determine the influence of si
mulated postoperative neck movements on the stabilizing effect and subsiden
ce of four different anterior cervical interbody fusion devices. Emphasis w
as placed on the relation between subsidence and spinal stability.
Methods. The flexibility of 24 human cervical spine specimens was tested be
fore and directly after being stabilized with a WING, BAK/C, AcroMed I/F ca
ge, or with bone cement in standard flexibility tests under 50 N axial prel
oad. Thereafter, 700 pure moment loading cycles (+/- 2 Nm) were applied in
randomized directions to simulate physiological neck movements. Additional
flexibility tests in combination with measurements of the subsidence depth
were conducted after 50, 100, 200, 300, 500, and 700 loading cycles.
In all four groups, simulated postoperative neck movements caused an increa
se of the range of motion (ROM) ranging from 0.4 to 3.1 degrees and of the
neutral zone from 0.1 to 4.2 degrees. This increase in flexibility was most
distinct in extension followed by flexion, lateral bending, and axial rota
tion. After cyclic loading, ROM tended to be lower in the group fitted with
AcroMed cages (3.3 degrees in right lateral bending, 3.5 degrees in left a
xial rotation, 7.8 degrees in flexion, 8.3 degrees in extension) and in the
group in which bone cement was applied (5.4 degrees, 2.5 degrees, 7.4 degr
ees, and 8.8 degrees, respectively) than in those fu;ed with the WING (6.3
degrees, 5.4 degrees, 9.7 degrees, and 6.9 degrees, respectively) and BAK c
ages (6.2 degrees, 4.5 degrees, 10.2 degrees, and 11.6 degrees, respectivel
y).
Conclusions. Simulated repeated neck movements not only caused an increase
of the flexibility but also subsidence of the implants into the adjacent ve
rtebrae. The relation between flexibility increase and subsidence seemed to
depend on the implant design: subsiding BAK/C cages partially supported st
ability whereas subsiding WING cages and AcroMed cages did not.