Outcomes of different zero-profile spacers in the treatment of two-level cervical degenerative disk disease

Xiong, Xu; Liu, Jiaming; Chen, Weiwen; Liu, Zi-Hao; Zhou, Ranran; Chen, Jiangwei; Liu, Z.

doi:10.1007/s00586-023-07756-8

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Given these challenges, the Zero-P system presents a promising alternative for ACDF at the C2–C3 level. The Zero-P system offers several advantages, such as reducing the risk of adjacent segment disease (ASD), enhancing fusion rates, employing a minimally invasive approach, preserving range of motion, and reducing hardware-related complications [ 7 , 8 ]. However, it is important to note that the Zero-P system could face limitations at C2–C3 levels due to obstruction from the mandibular bone, preventing downward implantation of the fixing nail.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biomechanical evaluation of the novel assembled internal fixed system in C2–C3 anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a finite element analysis

Chen,

Sun,

Cao

et al. 2024

J Orthop Surg Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background To analyze and compare the biomechanical characteristics of the new combined cervical fusion device (NCCFD) and the traditional cage-plate construct (CPC) to ascertain its effectiveness in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) using finite element analysis. Methods A finite element model of the cervical spine, inclusive of the occipital bone was created and validated. In the ACDF model, either CPC or NCCFD was implanted at the C2–C3 segment of the model. A pure moment of 1.0 Nm combined with a follower load of 50 N was directed onto the superior surfaces of the occipital bone to determine flexion, extension, lateral bending (left and right), and axial rotation (left and right). The range of motion (ROM), stress distribution at the bone-implant interface, and facet joint forces were investigated and compared between CPC and NCCFD systems. Result The results showed that the ROMs of the fused levels in both models were nearly zero, and the motions of the unfused segments were similar. In addition, the maximum displacement exhibited nearly identical values for both models. The maximum stress of NCCFD screws in lateral bending and rotational conditions is significantly higher than that of the CPC, while the NCCFD model’s maximum stress remains within an acceptable range. Comparing the maximum fusion stress, it was found that the CPC experiences much lower fusion stress in anterior flexion and extension than the NCCFD, with no significant difference between the two in lateral bending and rotational states. Stress on the cage was mainly concentrated on both sides of the wings. Comparing the maximum IDP in the CPC and NCCFD, it was observed that maximum stresses rise in extension and lateral bending for both models. Lastly, stress distributions of the facet joints were generally similar across the two devices. Conclusion NCCFD not only provides the same level of biomechanical stability as CPC but also avoids postoperative complications associated with uneven force damage to the implant. The device offers a novel surgical alternative for ACDF in C2–C3 level.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%