Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 5, 2026
Surgical Technique for the Implantation of a Biomimetic Artificial Intervertebral Disc in a Goat Animal Model
Published on: October 10, 2025
Biomechanical evaluation comparing zero-profile devices versus fixed profile systems in a cervical hybrid
Merritt D Kinon1, Samantha L Greeley2, Jonathan A Harris2
1Department of Neurological Surgery, Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, NY, USA.
Background Context:
The use of zero-profile devices and the need for posterior fixation in conjunction with a cervical hybrid decompression model have yet to be investigated.
Purpose:
To compare the biomechanics of zero-profile and fixed profile cervical hybrid constructs composed of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion (ACCF). Fixed profile devices included anterior plating, whereas zero-profile devices included integrated screws.
Study Design:
In vitro cadaveric biomechanical study.
Methods:
Twelve fresh-frozen cadaveric spines (C2-C7) were divided into two groups of equal bone mineral density, fixed profile versus zero profile (n=6). Groups were instrumented from C3-C6 with either (1) an expandable ACCF device and a static ACDF spacer with an anterior plate (Hybrid-AP) or (2) a zero-profile ACCF spacer with adjacent zero-profile ACDF spacer (Hybrid-Z). Motion was captured for the (1) intact condition, (2) a hybrid model with lateral mass screws (LMS), (3) a hybrid model without LMS, and (4) a hybrid model without LMS following simulated repetitive loading (fatigue).
Results:
Hybrid-AP with LMS reduced motion in flexion-extension (FE), lateral bending (LB), and axial rotation (AR) by 77%, 88%, and 82%, respectively, compared with intact. Likewise, Hybrid-Z with LMS exhibited the greatest reduction in motion relative to intact in FE, LB, and AR by 90%, 95%, and 66%, respectively. Following simulated in vivo fatiguing, an increase in motion was observed for both groups in all planes, particularly during Hybrid-Z postfatigue condition where motion increased relative to intact by 29%. Overall, biomechanical equivalency was observed between Hybrid-AP and Hybrid-Z groups (p>.05). Three (50%) of the Hybrid-Z group specimens exhibited signs of implant migration from the inferior endplate during testing.
Conclusions:
Fixed profile systems using an anterior plate for supplemental fixation is biomechanically more favorable to maintain stability and prevent dislodgement. Dislodgement of 50% of the Hybrid-Z group without LMS emphasizes the necessity for posterior fixation in a zero-profile cervical hybrid decompression model.
