Download PDF
Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2017; 30(06): 430-437
DOI: 10.3415/VCOT-17-03-0043
Original Research
Schattauer GmbH

Effect of Facetectomy on the Three-Dimensional Biomechanical Properties of the Fourth Canine Cervical Functional Spinal Unit: A Cadaveric Study

Nadja Bösch
1   Department of Clinical Veterinary Medicine, Small Animal Surgery, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Berne, Berne, Switzerland
,
Martin Hofstetter
2   Kleintier-Spezialisten Klinik ARC, Herisau, Switzerland
,
Alexander Bürki
3   Institute for Surgical Technology and Biomechanics, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
,
Beatriz Vidondo
4   Veterinary Public Health Institute, Schwarzenburgstrasse 155, CH-3097 Bern, Switzerland
,
Fenella Davies
1   Department of Clinical Veterinary Medicine, Small Animal Surgery, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Berne, Berne, Switzerland
,
Franck Forterre
1   Department of Clinical Veterinary Medicine, Small Animal Surgery, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Berne, Berne, Switzerland
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

received 17 March 2017

accepted after revision 17 August 2017

Publication Date:
04 December 2017 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective To study the biomechanical effect of facetectomy in 10 large breed dogs (>24 kg body weight) on the fourth canine cervical functional spinal unit.

Methods Canine cervical spines were freed from all muscles. Spines were mounted on a six-degrees-of-freedom spine testing machine for three-dimensional motion analysis. Data were recorded with an optoelectronic motion analysis system. The range of motion wasdetermined inall threeprimary motionsaswellasrange of motion of coupled motions on the intact specimen, after unilateral and after bilateral facetectomy. Repeated-measures analysis of variance models were used to assess the changes of the biomechanical properties in the three treatment groups considered.

Results Facetectomy increased range of motion of primary motions in all directions. Axial rotation was significantly influenced by facetectomy. Coupled motion was not influenced by facetectomy except for lateral bending with coupled motion axial rotation. The coupling factor (coupled motion/primary motion) decreased after facetectomy. Symmetry of motion was influenced by facetectomy in flexion–extension and axial rotation, but not in lateral bending.

Clinical Significance Facet joints play a significant role in the stability of the cervical spine and act to maintain spatial integrity. Therefore, cervical spinal treatments requiring a facetectomy should be carefully planned and if an excessive increase in range of motion is expected, complications should be anticipated and reduced via spinal stabilization.

Keywords

biomechanics - dogs - facetectomy - cervical
 

  • References

  • 1 Tarvin G, Prata RG. Lumbosacral stenosis in dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1980; 177 (02) 154-159.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Schulz KS, Waldron DR, Grant JW, Shell L, Smith G, Shires PK. Biomechanics of the thoracolumbar vertebral column of dogs during lateral bending. Am J Vet Res 1996; 57 (08) 1228-1232.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Danielski A, Vanhaesebrouck A, Yeadon R. Ventral stabilization and facetectomy in a Great Dane with wobbler syndrome due to cervical spinal canal stenosis. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2012; 25 (04) 337-341.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Zander T, Rohlmann A, Klöckner C, Bergmann G. Influence of graded facetectomy and laminectomy on spinal biomechanics. Eur Spine J 2003; 12 (04) 427-434.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Fossum TW. Cervicalspondylomyelopathy. In: Fossum TW, ed. 3rd ed. Smallanimalsurgery. St. Louis, MO: MosbyElsevier; 2007: 1427-1441.
    Google Scholar
  • 6 Gutierrez-Quintana R, Penderis J. MRI features of cervical articular process degenerative joint disease in Great Dane dogs with cervical spondylomyelopathy. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2012; 53 (03) 304-311.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Taylor-Brown FE, Cardy TJ, Liebel FX. et al. Risk factors for early post-operative neurological deterioration in dogs undergoing a cervical dorsal laminectomy or hemilaminectomy: 100 cases (2002-2014). Vet J 2015; 206 (03) 327-331.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Corse MR, Renberg WC, Friis EA. In vitro evaluation of biomechanical effects of multiple hemilaminectomies on the canine lumbar vertebral column. Am J Vet Res 2003; 64 (09) 1139-1145.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 de Vicente F, Bernard F, FitzPatrick D, Moissonnier P. In vitro radiographic characteristics and biomechanical properties of the canine lumbar vertebral motion unit after lateral corpectomy, mini-hemilaminectomy and hemilaminectomy. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2013; 26 (01) 19-26.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Vizcaíno Revés N, Bürki A, Ferguson S, Geissbühler U, Stahl C, Forterre F. Influence of partial lateral corpectomy with and without hemilaminectomy on canine thoracolumbar stability: a biomechanical study. Vet Surg 2012; 41 (02) 228-234.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Hofstetter M, Gédet P, Doherr M, Ferguson SJ, Forterre F. Biomechanical analysis of the three-dimensional motion pattern of the canine cervical spine segment C4-C5. Vet Surg 2009; 38 (01) 49-58.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Johnson JA, da Costa RC, Bhattacharya S, Goel V, Allen MJ. Kinematic motion patterns of the cranial and caudal canine cervical spine. Vet Surg 2011; 40 (06) 720-727.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 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
  • 14 Adamo PF, Kobayashi H, Markel M, Vanderby Jr R. In vitro biomechanical comparison of cervical disk arthroplasty, ventral slot procedure, and smooth pins with polymethylmethacrylate fixation at treated and adjacent canine cervical motion units. Vet Surg 2007; 36 (08) 729-741.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Schöllhorn B, Bürki A, Stahl C, Howard J, Forterre F. Comparison of the biomechanical properties of a ventral cervical intervertebral anchored fusion device with locking plate fixation applied to cadaveric canine cervical spines. Vet Surg 2013; 42 (07) 825-831.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 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
  • 17 Macy NB, Les CM, Stover SM, Kass PH. Effect of disk fenestration on sagittal kinematics of the canine C5-C6 intervertebral space. Vet Surg 1999; 28 (03) 171-179.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Moissonnier P, Desquilbet L, Fitzpatrick D, Bernard F. 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. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2014; 27 (01) 54-61.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Lang B, Loeffler K. Bewegungsmöglichkeiten der Wirbelsäule von Hund und Katze [Possible movements of the vertebral column of dogs and cats.]. Kleintierpraxis 1972; 17: 217-223.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Gédet P, Thistlethwaite PA, Ferguson SJ. Minimizing errors during in vitro testing of multisegmental spine specimens: considerations for component selection and kinematic measurement. J Biomech 2007; 40 (08) 1881-1885.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 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 (02) 148-154.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Bonelli MA, da Costa RC, Martin-Vaquero P, Lima CG. Comparison of angle, shape, and position of articular processes in Dobermans and Great Danes with and without cervical spondylomyelopathy. BMC Vet Res 2017; 13 (01) 77.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Breit S, Künzel W. Shape and orientation of articular facets of cervical vertebrae (C3-C7) in dogs denoting axial rotational ability: an osteological study. Eur J Morphol 2002; 40 (01) 43-51.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Lorenz MD, Coates JR, Kent M. Cervical spondylomyelopathy in dogs and horses. In Lorenz MD, Coates JR, Kent M. Eds 5th ed. Handbook of veterinary neurology. St.Louis, MO: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2010: 185-188.
    Google Scholar
  • 25 Crisco JJ, Panjabi MM, Wang E, Price MA, Pelker RR. The injured canine cervical spine after six months of healing. An in vitro three-dimensional study. Spine 1990; 15 (10) 1047-1052.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Ng HW, Teo EC, Lee KK, Qiu TX. Finite element analysis of cervical spinal instability under physiologic loading. J Spinal Disord Tech 2003; 16 (01) 55-65.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Ahmed AM, Duncan NA, Burke DL. The effect of facet geometry on the axial torque-rotation response of lumbar motion segments. Spine 1990; 15 (05) 391-401.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Provencher M, Habing A, Moore SA, Cook L, Phillips G, da Costa RC. Kinematic magnetic resonance imaging for evaluation of disc-associated cervical spondylomyelopathy in Doberman pinschers. J Vet Intern Med 2016; 30 (04) 1121-1128.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Ramos RM, da Costa RC, Oliveira AL, Kodigudla MK, Goel VK. Effects of flexion and extension on the diameter of the caudal cervical vertebral canal in dogs. Vet Surg 2015; 44 (04) 459-466.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Benninger MI, Seiler GS, Robinson LE. et al. Effects of anatomic conformation on three-dimensional motion of the caudal lumbar and lumbosacral portions of the vertebral column of dogs. Am J Vet Res 2006; 67 (01) 43-50.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 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 (24) 2692-2700.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Hongo M, Gay RE, Hsu JT. et al. Effect of multiple freeze-thaw cycles on intervertebral dynamic motion characteristics in the porcine lumbar spine. J Biomech 2008; 41 (04) 916-920.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Dhillon N, Bass EC, Lotz JC. Effect of frozen storage on the creep behavior of human intervertebral discs. Spine 2001; 26 (08) 883-888.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Panjabi MM, Krag M, Summers D, Videman T. Biomechanical time-tolerance of fresh cadaveric human spine specimens. J Orthop Res 1985; 3 (03) 292-300.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Büff HU, Panjabi MM, Sonu CM, Crisco JJ, Oxland TR, Pelker RR. Functional stability of the canine cervical spine after injury. A three-month in vivo study. Spine 1990; 15 (10) 1040-1046.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar