MULTIDIRECTIONAL FLEXIBILITY PROPERTIES OF SINGLE VERSUS MULTI-LEVEL CHARITÉ TOTAL DISC ARTHROPLASTY – AN EMPHASIS ON REVISION STRATEGIES

Abstract

Introduction This in-vitro biomechanical study was undertaken to compare the multi-directional flexibility kinematics of single versus multi-level lumbar Charité reconstructions and determine the optimal biomechanical method for surgical revision – posterior instrumentation alone or circumferential spinal arthrodesis.

Methods A total of seven human cadaveric lumbosacral spines (L1 to Sacrum) were utilized in this investigation and biomechanically evaluated under the following L4-L5 reconstruction conditions: 1) Intact Spine; 2) Diskectomy Alone, 3) Charité, 4) Charité + Pedicle Screws, 5) Two Level Charité (L4-S1), 6) Two Level Charité + Pedicle Screws (L4-S1), 7) Charité L4-L5 with Pedicle Screws and Femoral Ring Allograft (L5-S1) and 8) Pedicle Screws and Femoral Ring Allograft (L4-S1). Multi-directional flexibility testing utilized the Panjabi Hybrid Testing protocol, which includes pure moments for the intact condition with the overall spinal motion replicated under displacement control for subsequent reconstructions. Hence, changes in adjacent level kinematics can be obtained compared to pure moment testing strategies. Unconstrained intact moments of ±7Nm were used for axial rotation, flexion-extension and lateral bending testing, with quantification of the operative and adjacent level range of motion (ROM) and neutral zone (NZ). All data was normalized to the intact spine condition.

Results In axial rotation, single and two level Charité reconstructions produced significantly more motion than pedicle screw constructs combined with the Charité or femoral ring allograft (p< 0.05). There were no differences between the Charité augmented with pedicle screws or pedicle screws with femoral ring allograft (p> 0.05). Similar trends were observed under flexion-extension and lateral bending conditions with the Charité reconstructions demonstrating no significant differences compared to the intact spine (p> 0.05). However, the Charité combined with pedicle screws or pedicle screws with femoral ring allograft significantly reduced motion at the operative level compared to the Charité reconstruction (p< 0.05). The most pronounced changes in adjacent level kinematics were observed at the inferior level. The addition of pedicle screw fixation, in all cases, increased segmental motion at the inferior adjacent level (L5-S1) compared to the intact and Charité reconstruction groups (p< 0.05).

Discussion Single and two level total disc arthroplasty using the Charité device preserved segmental motion at the operative and adjacent levels compared to pedicle screw stabilization constructs. In terms of revision strategies, posterior pedicle screw reconstruction combined with an existing Charité is not statistically different from pedicle screws combined with femoral ring allograft. As we enter an era of total disc replacement and the impending necessity for surgical revision, the current study provides a biomechanical basis for posterior re-stabilization alone in lieu of combined anteroposterior revision.