These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Biomechanical evaluation of the novel assembled internal fixed system in C2-C3 anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a finite element analysis.
    Author: Chen H, Sun H, Cao L, Xia H, Tu Q.
    Journal: J Orthop Surg Res; 2024 Feb 01; 19(1):106. PubMed ID: 38303025.
    Abstract:
    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.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]