Object: The artificial disc has been proposed as an alternative to spinal fusion for degenerative disc disease. The primary aim of this biomechanical study was to compare motion and intradiscal pressure (IDP) in a ball-and-socket artificial disc-implanted cadaveric lumbar spine, at the operative and adjacent levels, using a displacement-controlled setup. A secondary comparison involved a "salvage" construct, consisting of pedicle screws (PSs) added in supplementation to the artificial disc construct.
Methods: Ten human cadaveric lumbosacral spines (L2-S1) were potted at L-2 and S-1. All measurements were initially made in the intact spine, followed by implantation of the artificial disc, and finally by the salvage PS condition. For the artificial disc condition, a Maverick ball-and-socket artificial disc was implanted at L4-5. For the PS condition, CD Horizon PSs were placed at L4-5, and the artificial disc was left in place. A displacement-controlled, custom-designed testing apparatus was used to impart motion in the sagittal and coronal planes. Motion at both the implanted level (L4-5) and immediately adjacent levels (L3-4 and L5-S1) was measured. Intradiscal pressure at the rostral adjacent level (L3-4) was also measured. The Tukey test was used for statistical analysis (p < 0.05).
Results: In flexion, no significant difference was noted between the artificial disc and the intact spine with regard to motion at the operative level, motion at adjacent levels, or IDP. In lateral bending, while the artificial disc significantly decreased operative-level motion (p < 0.05), no significant difference was noted in adjacent-level motion or IDP. With regard to extension, the artificial disc significantly increased operative level motion and decreased the rostral adjacent level (L3-4) motion and IDP (p < 0.05). Caudal adjacent-level (L5-S1) motion was not significantly different. In flexion and lateral bending, the addition of PSs significantly decreased motion at the implanted level when compared with the intact spine and the artificial disc (p < 0.05). This decrease in motion at the index level was associated with a compensatory increase in motion at both adjacent levels in flexion only (p < 0.05), but not in lateral bending (p > 0.05). The IDP was significantly increased in lateral bending but not in flexion. With regard to extension, the significant decrease in IDP that was noted with the artificial disc persisted despite the addition of PSs (p < 0.05).
Conclusions: The artificial disc either maintains or reduces adjacent-level motion and pressure, compared with the intact spine. The addition of PSs to the artificial disc construct leads to significantly increased motion at adjacent levels in flexion and significantly increased IDP in lateral bending. At the operative level, the artificial disc is associated with hypermobility in extension, which is restored to the intact state after the addition of supplementary PSs.