Radiography and biomechanics of sixth and seventh cervical vertebrae segments after disc fenestration and after insertion of an intervertebral body spacer

P. Moissonnier; L. Desquilbet; D. Fitzpatrick; F. Bernard

doi:10.3415/VCOT-11-11-0159

Veterinary and Comparative Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Inhaltsverzeichnis

Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2014; 27(01): 54-61
DOI: 10.3415/VCOT-11-11-0159

Original Research

Schattauer GmbH

Radiography and biomechanics of sixth and seventh cervical vertebrae segments after disc fenestration and after insertion of an intervertebral body spacer

A canine cadaveric study

P. Moissonnier

¹Ecole Nationale Vétérinarie d´Alfort, Surgery, Maisons-Alfort, France

,

L. Desquilbet

²École Nationale Vétérinaire d´Alfort, Département de Biostatistiques, Maisons-Alfort, France

,

D. Fitzpatrick

³University College Dublin, School of Mechanics and Materials, Engineering, Belfield, Ireland

,

F. Bernard

⁴Centre Hospitalier Vétérinarie Saint-Martin, Unité de Chirurgie, Saint-Martin-Bellevue, France

› Institutsangaben

Abstract

Summary

Objectives: To study the radiographic characteristics and the biomechanical properties of the sixth and seventh cervical (C6–C7) vertebral motion unit (VMU) with an intact disc, after disc fenestration, and after placement of an intervertebral body spacer (IVBS).

Methods: Six cadaveric C6-C7 VMU were retrieved from six Greyhound cadavers. Each VMU was loaded at 3 Nm of torque sequentially in flexion, extension, and in right and left lateral bending. The range-of-motion (ROM) was measured with a Zebris 3D® system. The intervertebral disc cross-sectional area was measured on lateral and ventrodorsal radiographs. Biomechanical testing and radiographic measurements were performed with an intact disc, after disc fenestration, and after IVBS placement. Data were reported as mean ± SD.

Results: The intervertebral disc cross-sectional area was significantly decreased after disc fenestration and increased after IVBS placement, but remained significantly smaller than the area of intact disc in some of the tested conditions. The ROM with an intact disc, after disc fenestration and after IVBS placement, in flexion were 11.5° ± 1.0, 15.2° ± 2.3, and 10.9° ± 4.7, respectively, and in extension were 15.6° ± 3.7, 24.7° ± 6.2, 21.9° ± 4.0, respectively. There was a significant increase in extension ROM after disc fenestration. Intervertebral body spacer placement significantly decreased ROM in flexion but ROM in extension was not different from disc fenestration. No significant changes in lateral bending ROM were detected.

Clinical significance: The use of an IVBS reduced disc space collapse but did not restore stability of the VMU to normal values in extension after cervical disc fenestration.

Keywords

Intervertebral disc - spacer - fenestration - biomechanics - dog

Volltext

Referenzen

References
1 Flo GL, Brinker WO. Lateral fenestration of thoracolumbar discs. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 1975; 11: 619-626.
2 Macy NB, Les CM, Stover SM. et al. Effect of disc fenestration on sagittal kinematics of the canine C5-C6 intervertebral space. Vet Surg 1999; 28: 171-179.
3 Smith JW, Walmsley R. Experimental incision of the intervertebral disc. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1951; 33: 612-625.
4 Wagner SD, Ferguson HR, Leipold H. et al. Radiographic and histologic changes after thoracolumbar disc curettage. Vet Surg 1987; 16: 65-69.
5 Dallman MJ, Moon ML, Giovannitti-Jensen A. Comparison of the width of the intervertebral disc space and radiographic changes before and after intervertebral disc fenestration in dogs. Am J Vet Res 1991; 52: 140-145.
6 McKee WM, Butterworth J, Scott HW. Management of cervical spondylopathy-associated intervertebral disc protrusions using metal washers in 78 dogs. J Small Anim Pract 1999; 40: 465-472.
7 Vuono-Hawkins M, Zimmerman MC, Lee CK. et al. Mechanical evaluation of a canine intervertebral disc spacer: in situ and in vivo studies. J Orthop Res 1994; 12: 119-127.
8 Wilke HJ, Wenger K, Claes L. Testing criteria for spinal implants: recommendations for the standardization of in vitro stability testing of spinal implants. Eur Spine J 1998; 7: 148-154.
9 Mullett H, King J, O’Rourke K. et al. Occipito-cervical fusion: A biomechanical analysis of initial construct stiffness of five implant systems. J Bone Joint Surg 2002; 84-B Supp III 333-334.
10 de Vicente F, Bernard F, Fitzpatrick D. et al. Characteristics and biomechanical properties of the canine lumbar vertebral motion unit after lateral corpectomy, mini-hemilaminectomy and hemilaminectomy. Vet Comp Orth Traum 2013; 26: 19-26.
11 Wilke HJ, Jungkunz B, Wenger K. et al. Spinal segment range of motion as a function of in vitro test conditions: effects of exposure period, accumulated cycles, angular-deformation rate, and moisture condition. Anat Rec 1998; 251: 15-19.
12 Hofstetter M, Gedet P, Doherr M. et al. Biomechanical analysis of the three-dimensional motion pattern of the canine cervical spine segment C4-C5. Vet Surg 2009; 38: 49-58.
13 Crisco JJ, Panjabi MM, Wang E. et al. The injured canine cervical spine after six months of healing. An in vitro three-dimensional study. Spine 1990; 15: 1047-1052.
14 Morgan JP, Miyabayashi T, Choy S. Cervical spine motion: radiographic study. Am J Vet Res 1986; 47: 2165-2169.
15 Nolan Jr. JP, Sherk HH. Biomechanical evaluation of the extensor musculature of the cervical spine. Spine 1988; 13: 9-11.
16 Panjabi MM, Crisco JJ, Vasavada A. et al. Mechanical properties of the human cervical spine as shown by three-dimensional load-displacement curves. Spine 2001; 26: 2692-2700.
17 Breit S, Kunzel W. Osteological features in pure-bred dogs predisposing to cervical spinal cord compression. J Anat 2001; 199: 527-537.
18 Lang B, Loeffler K. Bewegungsmöglichkeiten der Wirbelsaüle von Hunde und Katze [Possible movements of the vertebral column of dogs and cats]. Kleintier-Praxis 1972; 17: 217-223.
19 Trotter EJ. Canine wobbler syndrome. In: Current Veterinary Therapy IX. Kirk RW. editor. Philadelphia: Saunders; 1986. p. 1986-806.
20 Hukuda S, Wilson CB. Experimental cervical myelopathy: effects of compression and ischemia on the canine cervical cord. J Neurosurg 1972; 37: 631-652.
21 Trotter EJ. Canine wobbler syndrome. In: Textbook of Small Animal Orthopedics. Newton W, Nunamaker DM. editors. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 1985. p. 1985-765.
22 Gooding MR, Wilson CB, Hoff JT. Experimental cervical myelopathy. Effects of ischemia and compression of the canine cervical spinal cord. J Neurosurg 1975; 43: 9-17.
23 Trotter EJ, deLahunta A, Geary JC. et al. Caudal cervical vertebral malformation-malarticulation in Great Danes and Doberman Pinschers. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1976; 168: 917-930.
24 VanGundy TE. Disc-associated wobbler syndrome in the Doberman pinscher. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 1988; 18: 667-696.
25 Read RA, Robins GM, Carlisle CH. Caudal cervical spondylo-myelopathy (wobbler syndrome) in the dog: a review of thirty cases. J Small Anim Pract 1983; 24: 605-621.
26 Fauber AE, Wade JA, Lipka AE. et al. Effect of width of disc fenestration and a ventral slot on biomechanics of the canine C5-C6 vertebral motion unit. Am J Vet Res 2006; 67: 1844-1848.
27 Trotter EJ. Cervical spine locking plate fixation for treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy in large breed dogs. Vet Surg 2009; 38: 705-718.
28 Fransson BA, Zhu Q, Bagley RS. et al. Biomechanical evaluation of cervical intervertebral plug stabilization in an ovine model. Vet Surg 2007; 36: 449-457.