Spine. Volume 34(20), 15 September 2009, pp E716-E723

In Situ Contact Analysis of the Prosthesis Components of Prodisc-L in Lumbar Spine Following Total Disc Replacement

Chen, Wen-Ming MEng*; Park, ChunKun MD, PhD†; Lee, KwonYong PhD‡; Lee, SungJae PhD§
Author Information
From the *Division of Bioengineering, National University of Singapore, Singapore; †Department of Neurosurgery, Kangnam St. Mary's Hospital, Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea; ‡Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering, Sejong University, Korea; and §Department of Biomedical Engineering, College of Biomedical Science & Engineering, Inje University, Gyeongnam, Korea.

Copyright: © 2009 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.

Study Design. A three-dimensional, nonlinear finite element analysis was performed to predict the in situ contact interaction of prosthesis components of the Prodisc-L in a multisegmental lumbar model following total disc replacement (TDR).

Objective. Efforts were made to investigate how the TDR implant contact characteristics could affect the 3-dimensional kinematics, facet loads of the lumbar spine following TDR.

Summary of Background Data. Although spinal motion analyses of human lumbar cadaveric models after Prodisc TDR have been widely studied, the interaction of the disc prosthesis, particularly its in situ contact mechanics, is never known.

Methods. A validated intact multisegmental lumbar finite element model L2–L4 was altered to accommodate the TDR prosthesis through anterior approach. At L3–L4 disc space, the Prodisc-L of 6° lordosis angle was implanted centrally. The model was subjected to compressive preload and pure moments to create flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation motion in physiologic range. The contact interaction between the superior component of Prodisc-L and the UHMWPE inlay were assessed in terms of contact region (CR), contact area (CA), and contact pressure (CP). Parameters of range of motion (ROM) and facet loading transfer were simultaneously analyzed and compared with those of the intact model.

Results. The predicted contact area was 3.5 times larger in flexion than that observed in extension, whereas the maximum contact pressure in the disc articulation was very similar with 15.1 MPa for flexion and 14.5 MPa for extension. Joint surface incongruence was developed in extension motion. The implanted model exhibited a 91.4% increase in ROM accompanied by a 150.6% rising in facet force during extension, while the flexion motion showed the least effects of TDR. In lateral bending and axial rotation, the abnormal joint “lift off” was not seen.

Conclusion. The in situ function of the TDR prosthesis was highly dependent on how well the device could incorporate itself into the mechanical environment in the disc space, which has been determined by the rest of the spinal structures, including the retained disc anulus, articular facets, ligaments, vertebrae, and muscular stabilizers. The different contact interaction of the artificial disc components revealed here could be attributed to the violation of this mechanical environment which, in turn, may bring adverse effects to those spinal elements.