0
TECHNICAL PAPERS: Bone/Orthopedics

Comparison of Cervical Disk Implants and Cervical Disk Fusion Treatments in Human Cadaveric Models

[+] Author and Article Information
M. A. Davies

Mechanical Engineering & Engineering Science, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, University City Boulevard, Charlotte, NC 28223madavies@uncc.edu

S. C. Bryant, S. P. Larsen

Mechanical Engineering & Engineering Science, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, University City Boulevard, Charlotte, NC 28223

D. B. Murrey, D. S. Nussman, E. B. Laxer, B. V. Darden

Charlotte Spine Center, Charlotte Orthopedic Research Institute, Randolph Rd., Charlotte, NC 28203

J Biomech Eng 128(4), 481-486 (Jan 10, 2006) (6 pages) doi:10.1115/1.2205373 History: Received January 10, 2005; Revised January 10, 2006

Articulating cervical disk implants have been proposed as an alternative to disk fusion in the treatment of cervical disk disease. To examine the mechanical effect of articulating cervical disk implants (ACDI) versus simulated cervical disk fusion, a mechanical test device was constructed and cadaveric tests were carried out. While results show little effect on the pressures above and below the treatment level, the percent hysteretic behavior of the specimens trended to be higher for the ACDI, indicating that these implants retain more of the natural energy absorption capability of the cervical spine.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2006 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

(a) Apparatus and major components and (b) direction of motion

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

(a) Anterior view of prepared and “potted” specimen and (b) lateral radiograph of prepared specimen

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Angular deflection versus load curves for (a) untreated specimen and (b) treated specimen

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Representative motions of one specimen in extension for (a) no treatment, (b)PRODISC®, and (c) simulated fusion

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Comparison of maximum flexion angles for the different treatment types

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Pressure measurements showing (a) the mean maximum pressure changes in flexion and (b) the conditions of greater loading used in testing the final specimen

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Mean percent hysteresis per treatment type for all specimens

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In