Numerical Shape Optimization of Cervical Spine Disc Prosthesis Prodisc-C

Abstract:

Various ball and socket-type designs of cervical artificial discs are in use or under investigation. All these disc designs claim to restore the normal kinematics of the cervical spine. In this study, we are interested in the cervical prosthesis, which concerns the most sensitive part of the human body, given the movements generated by the head. The goal of this work is to minimize the constraints by numerical shape optimization in the prodisc-C cervical spine prosthesis in order to improve performance and bio-functionality as well as patient relief. Prodisc-C cervical spine prosthesis consists of two cobalt chromium alloy plates and a fixed nucleus. Ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene, on each plate there is a keel to stabilize the prosthesis; this prosthesis allows thee degrees of freedom in rotation. To achieve this goal, a static study was carried out to determine the constraint concentrations on the different components of the prosthesis. Based on the biomechanical behaviour of the spine discs, we totally fixed the lower metal plate; a vertical load of 73.6 N to simulate the weight of the head was applied to the superior metallic endplate. After a static study on this prosthesis, using a finite element model, we noticed that the concentration of the Von-Mises stress is concentrated on the peripheral edge core and the concave articulating surface of the superior metallic endplate the numerical. We use the module optimization for 3D SolidWorks for optimize our design, based on the criteria of minimizing stress value. Shape optimization concluded to minimize the equivalent stress value on both joint surface (concave and convex) from 11.3 MPa to 9.1MPa corresponding to a percentage decrease of 19.4% from the original geometry. We conclude that despite the fact that maximum Von Mises stresses are higher in the case of the dynamic load, remains that they are weak. Which is an advantage for the durability of the prosthesis and-also for the bone, because a low stress concentration on the prosthesis will reduce stress concentration generated by the implant on the bone, therefore its risk of fracture reduces.

• Periodical: Journal of Biomimetics, Biomaterials and Biomedical Engineering (Volume 36)
• Pages: 56-69
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/JBBBE.36.56
• Online since: March 2018
• Authors: Moussa Amadji, Hacene Ameddah, Hammoudi Mazouz
• Keywords: Prodisc-C, Prosthesis, Shape Optimization, Von Mises Stresses

References

[1] B. Watier, Mechanical Behavior of the Cervical Spine: A Literature Review Mechanical Behavior of Cervical Spine: Literature update, ITBM-RBM 27 (2006) 92–106.

DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmret.2006.05.006

[2] Cédric BARREY. Biomechanical evaluation of a cervical prosthesis. In vitro and in vivo analyzes. Doctoral School No. 432: Engineering Sciences P11, pp.37-38.

[3] Haluk Kucuk. Biomechanical analysis of cervical spine sagittal stiffness characteristics. Computers in Biology and Medicine 37 (2007) 1283 – 1291.

DOI: 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2006.11.014

[4] Neil R. Crawford, PhD, Seungwon Baek, MS a, Anna G.U. Sawa, MS a, Sam Safavi-Abbasi, MD b, Volker K.H. Sonntag, MD, Neil Duggal, MD . Biomechanics of a Fixed–Center of Rotation Cervical Intervertebral Disc Prosthesis. The International Journal of Spine Surgery xx (2012).

DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsp.2011.10.003

[5] Seok Woo Kim, MD, PhD, Sang-Hoon Paik, MD, Paolo Antonio F. Castro, MD, Suk-Woo Baek, MD, Dong-Jou Shin, MD, Yoon-Hae Kwak, MD, Young-Su Ju, MD, MPh, PhD. Analysis of factors that may influence range of motion after cervical disc arthroplasty. The Spine Journal 10 (2010).

DOI: 10.3822/ijtmb.v8i3.295

[6] Jon Park, Jun Jae Shin , Jesse Lim, Biomechanical Analysis of Disc Pressure and Facet Contact Force After Simulated Two-Level Cervical Surgeries (Fusion and Arthroplasty) and Hybrid Surgery. 2014 Dec; 82(6):1388-93.

DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2014.06.013

[7] Paul A. Anderson, MD, Rick C. Sasso, MD, Jeffrey P. Rouleau, PhD, Cathy S. Carlson, DVM, PhDd, Jan Goffin, MD, PhDe. The Bryan Cervical Disc: wear properties and early clinical results. The Spine Journal 4 (2004) 303S–309S.

DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2004.07.026

[8] J.-M. Vital , L. Boissière. Total disc replacement. Orthopaedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research 100 (2014) S1–S14.

DOI: 10.1016/j.otsr.2013.06.018

[9] Bryan W. Cunningham, MSc. Basic scientific considerations in total disc arthroplasty. The Spine Journal 4 (2004) 219S–230S.

[10] Bruce V. Darden, II, MD. ProDisc-C Cervical Disk Arthroplasty. Semin Spine Surg 24:8-13 © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

[11] Jau-Ching Wu, MD, Scott A. Meyer, MD, Gurpreet Gandhoke, MD, and Praveen V. Mummaneni, MD PRESTIGE Cervical Arthroplasty: Past, Present, and Future. Semin Spine Surg 24:14-19 © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

DOI: 10.1053/j.semss.2011.11.004

[12] Fabio Galbusera, Chiara M. Bellini , Manuela T. Raimondi, Maurizio Fornari , Roberto Assietti. Cervical spine biomechanics following implantation of a disc prosthesis. Medical Engineering & Physics 30 (2008) 1127–1133.

DOI: 10.1016/j.medengphy.2008.02.002

[13] Sudeep Taksali, MDa, Jonathan N. Grauer, MD, Alexander R. Vaccaro, MD. Material considerations for intervertebral disc replacement implants. The Spine Journal 4 (2004) 231S–238S.

DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2004.07.012

[14] Zhong Jun Mo, Yan Bin Zhao, Li Zhen Wang, Yu Sun, Ming Zhang, Yu Bo Fan. Biomechanical effects of cervical arthroplasty with U-shaped discimplant on segmental range of motion and loading of surroundingsoft tissue. Eur Spine J (2014) 23:613–621.

DOI: 10.1007/s00586-013-3070-4

[15] Sanghita Bhattacharya, BS, Vijay K. Goel, PhD, Xia Liu, PhD, Ali Kiapour, PhD, Hassan A. Serhan, PhD. Models that incorporate spinal structures predict better wear performance of cervical artificial discs. The Spine Journal 11 (2011) 766–776.

DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2011.06.008

[16] Nikhil Kulkarni, Effects of Implant Design Parameters on Cervical Disc Arthroplasty Performance and Sagittal Balance - A Finite Element Investigation, the University of Toledo August 2010 P71-84.

[17] Bruce V. Darden, II, MD. ProDisc-C Cervical Disk Arthroplasty. Semin Spine Surg 24:8-13 © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

[18] Prodisc-C. Prothèse modulaire de disque intervertébral pour la restauration de la hauteur discale et de la mobilité segmentaire dans le rachis cervical.www.synthesprodisc.com.

DOI: 10.1007/978-2-287-99074-8_2

[19] Riadh Bahloul. Optimisation of the bending process of high strength low alloy sheet mtetal. École Nationale Supérieure d'Arts et Métiers Centre d'Angers. N° d'ordre : 2005-17. P 56, 57.

[20] Jean Christophe CURSOLLE. Lumbar disc prosthesis. Clinical and radiological results of a series of 124 patients. University Bordeaux 2 - victor segalen u.f.r. medical sciences.( 2007 ) P13.

[21] J. BANDET. Biomechanical Study of Thorax Head Connection. Bulletin No. 28. December (1971).

[22] Sean P. Moroney, Albert B. Schultz, James A. A. Miller and Gunnar B. J. Andersson. Load-Displacement Properties of Lower Cervical Spine Motion Segments, J. Biomechanics, Vol. 21. N°9, pp.769-779, (1988).

DOI: 10.1016/0021-9290(88)90285-0

[23] Joel A. Bauman, MD, Nicolas V. Jaumard, PhD, Benjamin B. Guarino, BSEb, Christine L. Weisshaar, MS, Daniel E. Lipschutz, BSE, William C. Welch, MD, Beth A. Winkelstein, PhD. Facet joint contact pressure is not significantly affected by ProDisc cervical disc arthroplasty in sagittal bending: a single-level cadaveric study. The Spine Journal - (2012).

DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2012.08.013

[24] van den Broek, P.R. Development of a biomimetic artificial intervertebral disc. Technische Universiteit Eindhoven.

[25] Sanghita Bhattacharya, Second Vijay K. Goel. Wear Outcomes of a Metal on Metal Disc Arthroplasty – A Computational Model. International Journal of Mechanics and Applications (2013), 3(5A): 13-21.

[26] Haiyun Li, Zheng Wang. Intervertebral disc biomechanical analysis using the finite element modeling based on medical images. Computerized Medical Imaging and Graphics 30 (2006) 363–370.

DOI: 10.1016/j.compmedimag.2006.09.004