Journal of Translational and Practical Medicine regularly publishes internationally qualified issues in the field of Medicine in the light of up-to-date information.

EndNote Style
Original Article
In vivo dynamic analysis of bone-implant interface in cervical disc implants
Aims: Our aim was to learn whether there is a micro motion at the bone-implant interface of the UFO cervical disc prosthesis.
Methods: Sagittal range of motion of the functional spinal unit, defined as the angle formed by lines drawn at the superior margin of the upper vertebral body and the inferior margin of the lower body were determined preoperatively and postoperatively. Besides, the possible micro motion at the bone-implant interface was evaluated.
Results: We report this dynamic computerized tomography evaluation method as an enabler to determine if there is micro motion at the bone implant interface of this cervical arthroplasty device, for the observed postoperative follow-up period of one year.
Conclusion: While significant motion could be found in all of our patients, in one level significant (6°) segmental micro motion at the bone- implant interface could be documented.

1. Bartels RH, Donk R. Fusion around cervical disc prosthesis:case report. Neurosurgery. 2005;57(1):E194. doi:10.1227/01.neu.0000163419.59635.78
2. Beaurain J, Bernard P, Dufour T, et al. Intermediate clinical andradiological results of cervical TDR (Mobi-C) with up to 2 years offollow-up. Eur Spine J. 2009;18(6):841-850. doi:10.1007/s00586-009-1017-6
3. Bridwell KH, Anderson PA, Boden SD, Vaccaro AR, Zigler JE.What's new in spine surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86(7):1587-1596. doi:10.2106/00004623-200407000-00033
4. Galbusera F, Bellini CM, Raimondi MT, Fornari M, Assietti R.Cervical spine biomechanics following implantation of a discprosthesis. Med Eng Phys. 2008;30(9):1127-1133. doi:10.1016/j.medengphy.2008.02.002
5. Goffin J, Casey A, Kehr P, et al. Preliminary clinical experience withthe Bryan Cervical Disc Prosthesis. Neurosurgery. 2002;51(3):840-847. doi:10.1227/00006123-200209000-00048
6. Hilibrand AS, Carlson GD, Palumbo MA, Jones PK, Bohlman HH.Radiculopathy and myelopathy at segments adjacent to the siteof a previous anterior cervical arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am.1999;81(4):519-528. doi:10.2106/00004623-199904000-00009
7. Kolstad F, Nygaard ØP, Leivseth G. Segmental motion adjacent toanterior cervical arthrodesis: a prospective study. Spine (Phila Pa1976). 2007;32(5):512-517. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000256448.04035.bb
8. Mehren C, Suchomel P, Grochulla F, et al. Heterotopic ossificationin total cervical artificial disc replacement. Spine (Phila Pa 1976).2006;31(24):2802-2806. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000245852.70594.d5
9. Parkinson JF, Sekhon LH. Cervical arthroplasty complicatedby delayed spontaneous fusion. Case report. J Neurosurg Spine.2005;2(3):377-380. doi:10.3171/spi.2005.2.3.0377
10. Kim SW, Shin JH, Arbatin JJ, Park MS, Chung YK, McAfee PC.Effects of a cervical disc prosthesis on maintaining sagittal alignmentof the functional spinal unit and overall sagittal balance of thecervical spine. Eur Spine J. 2008;17(1):20-29. doi: 10.1007/s00586-007-0459-y.
11. Wenger M, Hoonacker Pv, Zachee B, Lange R, Markwalder TM.Bryan cervical disc prostheses: preservation of function over time. JClin Neurosci. 2009;16(2):220-225. doi:10.1016/j.jocn.2008.01.021
12. Yang S, Wu X, Hu Y, et al. Early and intermediate follow-up resultsafter treatment of degenerative disc disease with the Bryan cervicaldisc prosthesis: single- and multiple-level. Spine (Phila Pa 1976).2008;33(12):E371-E377. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e31817343a6
13. Jiang Y, Tian Y, Wang YP, Qiu GX, Weng XS, Feng B. The mid-termeffects of Bryan cervical disc prosthesis on sagittal alignment ofoverall cervical spine and the functional spinal unit. Zhonghua WaiKe Za Zhi. 2012 Mar;50(3):243-6.
14. Ryu WH, Kowalczyk I, Duggal N. Long-term kinematic analysisof cervical spine after single-level implantation of Bryan cervicaldisc prosthesis. Spine J. 2013;13(6):628-634. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2013.02.046
15. Li JY, Jia YS, Zheng CY, et al. Effect of Bryan cervical disc replacementon cervical curvature and replacement segment in treating cervicalspondylosis. Zhongguo Gu Shang. 2018;31(8):751-756. doi:10.3969/j.issn.1003-0034.2018.08.013
16. Shin JJ, Kim KR, Son DW, et al. Radiological changes in adjacentand index levels after cervical disc arthroplasty. Yonsei Med J.2022;63(1):72-81. doi:10.3349/ymj.2022.63.1.72
17. Patwardhan AG, Havey RM. Biomechanics of cervical discarthroplasty-a review of concepts and current technology. Int J SpineSurg. 2020;14(s2):S14-S28. doi:10.14444/7087
18. Wo J, Lv Z, Wang J, et al. Biomechanical analysis of cervical artificialdisc replacement using cervical subtotal discectomy prosthesis. FrontBioeng Biotechnol. 2021;9:680769. doi:10.3389/fbioe.2021.680769
19. Patwardhan AG, Havey RM. Prosthesis design influences segmentalcontribution to total cervical motion after cervical disc arthroplasty.Eur Spine J. 2020;29(11):2713-2721. doi:10.1007/s00586-019-06064-4
Volume 2, Issue 2, 2023
Page : 85-88