The move-C cervical artificial disc can restore intact range of motion and 3-D kinematics.

Background Context: In contrast to cervical discectomy and fusion, total disc replacement (TDR) aims at preserving the motion at the treated vertebral level. Spinal motion is commonly evaluated with the range of motion (ROM). However, more qualitative information about cervical kinematics before and after TDR is still lacking.

Purpose: The aim of this in vitro study was to investigate the influence of cervical TDR on ROM, instantaneous centers of rotation (ICR) and three-dimensional helical axes.

Study Design: An in vitro study with human spine specimens under pure moment loading was conducted to evaluate the kinematics of the intact cervical spine and compare it to cervical TDR.

Methods: Six fresh frozen human cervical specimens (C4-5, median age 28 years, range 19-47 years, two female and four male) were biomechanically characterized in the intact state and after implantation of a cervical disc prosthesis (MOVE-C, NGMedical, Germany). To mimic in vivo conditions regarding temperature and humidity, water steam was used to create a warm and humid test environment with 37°C. Each specimen was quasistatically loaded with pure moments up to ±2.5 Nm in flexion/extension (FE), lateral bending (LB) and axial rotation (AR) in a universal spine tester for 3.5 cycles at 1 °/s. For each third cycle of motion the ROM was evaluated and an established method was used to determine the helical axis and COR and to project them into three planar X-rays. Statistical analysis was conducted using a Friedman-test and post hoc correction with Dunn-Bonferroni-tests (p<.05).

Results: After TDR, total ROM was increased in FE from 19.1° to 20.1°, decreased in LB from 14.6° to 12.6° and decreased in AR from 17.7° to 15.5°. No statistical differences between the primary ROM in the intact condition and ROM after TDR were detected. Coupled rotation between LB and AR were also maintained. The position and orientation of the helical axes after cervical TDR was in good agreement with the results of the intact specimens in all three motion directions. The ICR in FE and AR before and after TDR closely matched, while in LB the ICR after TDR were more caudal. The intact in vitro kinematics we found also resembled in vivo results of healthy individuals.

Conclusion: The results of this in vitro study highlight the potential of artificial cervical disc implants to replicate the quantity as well as the quality of motion of the intact cervical spine.

Clinical Significance: Physiological motion preservation was a driving factor in the development of cervical TDR. Our results demonstrate the potential of cervical TDR to replicate in vivo kinematics in all three motion directions.