Related Experiment Video
Updated: Nov 19, 2025
Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion in the Ovine Model
Published on: October 5, 2009
Comparative Finite Element Modeling Study of Anterior Cervical Arthrodesis Versus Cervical Arthroplasty With Bryan
Hoon Choi1, Yuvaraj Purushothaman1,2, Jamie L Baisden1
1Center for NeuroTrauma Research, Department of Neurosurgery, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI 53226, USA.
Introduction:
Cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA), a motion-preserving alternative to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), is used in military patients for the treatment of disorders such as spondylosis. Since 2007, the FDA has approved eight artificial discs. The objective of this study is to compare the biomechanics after ACDF and CDA with two FDA-approved devices of differing designs under head and head supported mass loadings.
Materials And Methods:
A previously validated osteoligamentous C2-T1 finite element model was used to simulate ACDF and two types of CDA (Bryan and Prodisc C) at the C5-C6 level. The hybrid loading protocol associated with in vivo head and head supported mass was used to apply flexion and extension loading. First, intact spine was subjected to 2 Nm of flexion extension and the range of motion (ROM) was measured. Next, for each surgical option, flexion-extension moments duplicating the same ROM as the intact spine were determined. Under these surgery-specific moments, ROM and facet force were obtained at the index level, and ROM, facet force, and intradiscal pressure at the rostral and caudal adjacent levels.
Results:
ACDF led to increased motion, force and pressures at the adjacent levels. Prodisc C led to increased motion and facet force at the index level, and decreased motion, facet force, and intradiscal pressure at both adjacent levels. Bryan produced less dramatic biomechanical alterations compared with ACDF and Prodisc C. Numerical results are given in the article.
Conclusions:
Recognizing that ROM is a clinical measure of spine stability/performance, CDA demonstrates a more physiological biomechanical response than ACDF, although the exact pattern depends on the implant design. Anterior and posterior column load-sharing patterns were different between the two implants and may affect implant selection based on the anatomical and pathological state at the index and adjacent levels.
