Download PDF
Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2019; 32(01): 079-086
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1676075
Case Report
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Development of a Customized Interbody Fusion Device for Treatment of Canine Disc-Associated Cervical Spondylomyelopathy

Michelle R. Joffe
1   Sydney School of Veterinary Science, Faculty of Science, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
,
William C. H. Parr
2   Surgical and Orthopaedic Research Laboratories (SORL), Prince of Wales Clinical School, Prince of Wales Hospital, University of New South Wales (UNSW), Randwick, New South Wales, Australia
,
Christopher Tan
1   Sydney School of Veterinary Science, Faculty of Science, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
2   Surgical and Orthopaedic Research Laboratories (SORL), Prince of Wales Clinical School, Prince of Wales Hospital, University of New South Wales (UNSW), Randwick, New South Wales, Australia
,
William R. Walsh
2   Surgical and Orthopaedic Research Laboratories (SORL), Prince of Wales Clinical School, Prince of Wales Hospital, University of New South Wales (UNSW), Randwick, New South Wales, Australia
,
Laurencie Brunel
1   Sydney School of Veterinary Science, Faculty of Science, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
› Author Affiliations Funding Research funding was granted via a One Heath Collaborative Project, The University of Sydney.
Further Information

Publication History

25 November 2017

15 September 2018

Publication Date:
15 January 2019 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objectives The main purpose of this study was to design, manufacture and implant a customized three-dimensional (3D) printed, intervertebral spacer to treat disc-associated cervical spondylomyelopathy (DACSM) in dogs. This study also used advanced imaging to assess implant movement, subsidence and interbody fusion.

Animals Two client-owned dogs with DACSM.

Method Customized interbody devices were designed and 3D printed in titanium alloy. The devices were implanted in dogs diagnosed with DACSM. The dogs were evaluated at time points 0, 2 and 6 months to determine clinical outcome, degree of interbody fusion, implant migration and subsidence.

Results Progressive fusion was noted across the affected intervertebral space by 6 months. Implants mildly shifted cranially in the 2-month interim. There was no subsidence of the intervertebral device through the vertebral end plates in dog 1 and minimal in dog 2 (∼0.5 mm). Clinically, the neurological status improved in both dogs.

Conclusions The customized interbody devices restored the intervertebral space and resulted in a degree of interbody fusion and resolution of clinical signs.

Clinical Significance This report illustrates preliminary outcomes of DACSM treated with a customized, end plate conforming, intervertebral device. Collaboration between clinicians and engineers with advanced manufacturing technologies can provide a cutting-edge standard of care for patients suffering from DACSM.

Keywords

three-dimensional printing - cervical spondylomyelopathy - customized interbody fusion device - canine - dog

Author Contribution

Michelle R. Joffe, William C. H. Parr and Laurencie Brunel contributed to conception of study, study design, acquisition of data and data analysis and interpretation. Christopher Tan and William R. Walsh contributed to conception of study, study design and data analysis and interpretation. All Authors drafted, revised and approved the submitted manuscript.


Supplementary Material

 

  • References

  • 1 da Costa RC. Cervical spondylomyelopathy (wobbler syndrome) in dogs. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 2010; 40 (05) 881-913
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 De Decker S, Bhatti SF, Duchateau L. , et al. Clinical evaluation of 51 dogs treated conservatively for disc-associated wobbler syndrome. J Small Anim Pract 2009; 50 (03) 136-142
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 De Decker S, Gielen IM, Duchateau L. , et al. Evolution of clinical signs and predictors of outcome after conservative medical treatment for disk-associated cervical spondylomyelopathy in dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2012; 240 (07) 848-857
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 da Costa RC, Parent JM, Holmberg DL, Sinclair D, Monteith G. Outcome of medical and surgical treatment in dogs with cervical spondylomyelopathy: 104 cases (1988-2004). J Am Vet Med Assoc 2008; 233 (08) 1284-1290
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Adamo PF. Cervical arthroplasty in two dogs with disk-associated cervical spondylomyelopathy. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2011; 239 (06) 808-817
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Trotter EJ. Cervical spine locking plate fixation for treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy in large breed dogs. Vet Surg 2009; 38 (06) 705-718
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Steffen F, Voss K, Morgan JP. Distraction-fusion for caudal cervical spondylomyelopathy using an intervertebral cage and locking plates in 14 dogs. Vet Surg 2011; 40 (06) 743-752
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Jeffery ND, McKee WM. Surgery for disc-associated wobbler syndrome in the dog--an examination of the controversy. J Small Anim Pract 2001; 42 (12) 574-581
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Hakozaki T, Ichinohe T, Kanno N. , et al. Biomechanical assessment of the effects of vertebral distraction-fusion techniques on the adjacent segment of canine cervical vertebrae. Am J Vet Res 2016; 77 (11) 1194-1199
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Koehler CL, Stover SM, LeCouteur RA, Schulz KS, Hawkins DA. Effect of a ventral slot procedure and of smooth or positive-profile threaded pins with polymethylmethacrylate fixation on intervertebral biomechanics at treated and adjacent canine cervical vertebral motion units. Am J Vet Res 2005; 66 (04) 678-687
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Bergman RL, Levine JM, Coates JR, Bahr A, Hettlich BF, Kerwin SC. Cervical spinal locking plate in combination with cortical ring allograft for a one level fusion in dogs with cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Vet Surg 2008; 37 (06) 530-536
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Spetzger U, Frasca M, König SA. Surgical planning, manufacturing and implantation of an individualized cervical fusion titanium cage using patient-specific data. Eur Spine J 2016; 25 (07) 2239-2246
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Provaggi E, Leong JJ, Kalaskar DM. Applications of 3D printing in the management of severe spinal conditions. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part H: Journal of Engineering in Medicine. 2016:0954411916667761
    PubMed
  • 14 Zhang F, Xu HC, Yin B. , et al. Can an endplate-conformed cervical cage provide a better biomechanical environment than a typical non-conformed cage?: a finite element model and cadaver study. Orthop Surg 2016; 8 (03) 367-376
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Matsunaga S, Kabayama S, Yamamoto T, Yone K, Sakou T, Nakanishi K. Strain on intervertebral discs after anterior cervical decompression and fusion. Spine 1999; 24 (07) 670-675
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Eck JC, Humphreys SC, Lim TH. , et al. Biomechanical study on the effect of cervical spine fusion on adjacent-level intradiscal pressure and segmental motion. Spine 2002; 27 (22) 2431-2434
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 de Beer N, Scheffer C. Reducing subsidence risk by using rapid manufactured patient-specific intervertebral disc implants. Spine J 2012; 12 (11) 1060-1066
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Penning L, Badoux DM. Radiological study of the movements of the cervical spine in the dog compared with those in man. Anat Histol Embryol 1987; 16 (01) 1-20
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Smit TH. The use of a quadruped as an in vivo model for the study of the spine - biomechanical considerations. Eur Spine J 2002; 11 (02) 137-144
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Parr WC, Wilson LA, Wroe S, Colman NJ, Crowther MS, Letnic M. Cranial shape and the modularity of hybridization in dingoes and dogs; hybridization does not spell the end for native morphology. Evol Biol 2016; 43 (02) 171-187
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Tan CJ, Parr WCH, Walsh WR, Makara M, Johnson KA. Influence of scan resolution, thresholding, and reconstruction algorithm on computed tomography-based kinematic measurements. J Biomech Eng 2017; 139 (10) 104503-104505
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Simmons CA, Valiquette N, Pilliar RM. Osseointegration of sintered porous-surfaced and plasma spray-coated implants: an animal model study of early postimplantation healing response and mechanical stability. J Biomed Mater Res 1999; 47 (02) 127-138
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Johnson KA. Piermattei's Atlas of Surgical Approaches to the Bones and Joints of the Dog and Cat: Elsevier Health Sciences, St. Louis, Missouri; 2014
  • 24 Lowe TG, Hashim S, Wilson LA. , et al. A biomechanical study of regional endplate strength and cage morphology as it relates to structural interbody support. Spine 2004; 29 (21) 2389-2394
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Mobbs RJ, Choy WJ, Wilson P, McEvoy A, Phan K, Parr WCH. L5 enbloc vertebrectomy with customised reconstructive implant: comparison of patient specific versus off-the-shelf implant. World Neurosurg 2018; 112 (01) 94-100
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Kaiser MG, Haid Jr RW, Subach BR, Barnes B, Rodts Jr GE. Anterior cervical plating enhances arthrodesis after discectomy and fusion with cortical allograft. Neurosurgery 2002; 50 (02) 229-236 , discussion 236–238
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Corlazzoli D. Bicortical implant insertion in caudal cervical spondylomyelopathy: a computed tomography simulation in affected Doberman Pinschers. Vet Surg 2008; 37 (02) 178-185
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Watine S, Cabassu JP, Catheland S, Brochier L, Ivanoff S. Computed tomography study of implantation corridors in canine vertebrae. J Small Anim Pract 2006; 47 (11) 651-657
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Agnello KA, Kapatkin AS, Garcia TC, Hayashi K, Welihozkiy AT, Stover SM. Intervertebral biomechanics of locking compression plate monocortical fixation of the canine cervical spine. Vet Surg 2010; 39 (08) 991-1000
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Eastlack RK, Garfin SR, Brown CR, Meyer SC. Osteocel Plus cellular allograft in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: evaluation of clinical and radiographic outcomes from a prospective multicenter study. Spine 2014; 39 (22) E1331-E1337
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Tilkeridis K, Touzopoulos P, Ververidis A, Christodoulou S, Kazakos K, Drosos GI. Use of demineralized bone matrix in spinal fusion. World J Orthop 2014; 5 (01) 30-37
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Hoffer MJ, Griffon DJ, Schaeffer DJ, Johnson AL, Thomas MW. Clinical applications of demineralized bone matrix: a retrospective and case-matched study of seventy-five dogs. Vet Surg 2008; 37 (07) 639-647
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Lee KJ, Roper JG, Wang JC. Demineralized bone matrix and spinal arthrodesis. Spine J 2005; 5 (6, Suppl): 217S-223S
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Kim YS, Park JY, Moon BJ, Kim SD, Lee JK. Is stand alone PEEK cage the gold standard in multilevel anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF)? Results of a minimum 1-year follow up. J Clin Neurosci 2018; 47: 341-346
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Ernstberger T, Heidrich G, Bruening T, Krefft S, Buchhorn G, Klinger HM. The interobserver-validated relevance of intervertebral spacer materials in MRI artifacting. Eur Spine J 2007; 16 (02) 179-185
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar