Biomaterials and Biomechanics of Spinal Arthroplasty

Published on 14/03/2015 by admin

Filed under Neurosurgery

Last modified 14/03/2015

Print this page

rate 1 star rate 2 star rate 3 star rate 4 star rate 5 star
Your rating: none, Average: 0 (0 votes)

This article have been viewed 927 times

CHAPTER 266 Biomaterials and Biomechanics of Spinal Arthroplasty

The concept of artificial disk replacement is clearly not new. Documented attempts at disk arthroplasty, although unsophisticated, date back nearly 50 years. This chapter attempts to define the biomechanics of the native cervical and lumbar spine, the biomechanics of disk arthroplasty, and the biomaterials available to manufacture arthroplasty devices.

The success associated with replacement of a joint of the appendicular skeleton, such as the hip joint or knee joint, has led to the assumption that joints of the spine may also be amenable to arthroplasty. The functional spinal unit (FSU) is composed of the intervertebral disk and paired facet joints and may be partially augmented (nuclear replacement) or completely replaced (disk arthroplasty, facet joint replacement). Unfortunately, the significant stress placed on the axial skeleton, in combination with the complex biomechanical properties of both the cervical and lumbar spine, such as coupled motion, makes both design of the arthroplasty device and selection of the ideal composite biomaterial a complicated undertaking to say the least. In 1955, Cleveland reported 14 patients in whom he implanted a methyl-acrylic device into the intervertebral space at the time of diskectomy.1 This was followed by Harmon’s use of Vitallium spheres in 13 patients from 1959 to 1961.2 These implants, which were inserted into the lumbar spine through an anterior retroperitoneal approach, led to spontaneous fusion rather than preservation of motion. Another pioneer was Fernstrom, who in 1966 published the outcomes of patients undergoing implantation of a solid stainless steel sphere into the lumbar disk space through a posterior approach at the time of lumbar diskectomy.3 These were important steps that unfortunately met with profound failure. Inadequate surface area resulted in subsidence. Poor design resulted in disk space collapse without restoration of motion. With the advent of more forgiving designs of arthroplasty devices, the challenge has become creation of a device that can withstand hundreds of thousands of wear cycles while allowing ease of insertion and uncomplicated revision.

Historically, anterior cervical decompression with arthrodesis has been a very successful operation for treating both neck pain and cervical spinal cord or root compression syndromes. With the use of interbody graft material and plate fixation, high rates of fusion and high rates of clinical success have been well documented. The surgical goal is solid bony arthrodesis and decompression with a clinical end point of relief of neck pain and neural compression. It has been estimated that failure or pseudarthrosis after attempted anterior cervical fusion may develop in up to 20% of patients.4 Pseudarthrosis may be associated with increasing neck pain, progressive neurological deficit, or the development of spinal deformity. Even in cases of successful fusion, loss of the FSU may transfer biomechanical stress to adjacent levels and presumably lead to more rapid deterioration of affected levels.5,6 Clearly, successful arthroplasty would eliminate the possibility of pseudarthrosis while maintaining neural decompression. This would achieve the ultimate goal of minimizing degeneration of adjacent segments while curing both neck pain and radicular symptoms.

In dealing with the lumbar spine, the biomechanics is clearly different. Not only is the axial load on the lumbar spine greater, but the facet joints and disks are also much larger structures. Perhaps an even more difficult problem is the difficulty in anterior access, particularly after previous anterior lumbar operations have been performed. Unlike the cervical spine, in which anterior access is relatively straightforward, revision surgery in the lumbar spine may present both challenging and possibly life-threatening hurdles. Initially, mobilization of the great vessels can be accomplished carefully by either the spine surgeon or an approach (general or vascular) surgeon. After a surgical intervention, scar tissue often develops around the great vessels and obliterates the normal planes of dissection. An attempt to mobilize vessels in this situation is a significant undertaking. In a perfect world, the implanted arthroplasty device in the lumbar spine would last throughout the entire life of the patient. It would never shed products of motion, known as wear debris, and would significantly eliminate stress on both the facet joints and the adjacent disk levels while relieving both back pain and radicular complaints.

To further define the scope of the problem, more than 80% of Americans will experience a significant episode of neck or back pain at least once during their lifetime. Initially, most back pain was attributed to simple muscular strain. Now, with increased understanding of the progressive injury that affects intervertebral disks, concepts such as diskogenic disease and facet arthropathy predominate. Low back pain has become a problem not only for the individual but also for society as a whole. The significant loss of work days because of back pain, the need for chronic pain medications, and the restriction of activities have had a significant impact on the functioning workforce in this country. As intervertebral disk pathology progresses, not only does loss of hydration of the disk space result in decreased shock-absorbing capacity of the nucleus, but there is also progressive wear. This wear adversely affects the annulus and may result in extremely painful annular tears and often irritation of the traversing or exiting nerve roots associated with the disk spaces. Initial attempts at disk arthroplasty were relatively crude by current standards. At this time, a number of disk arthroplasty devices have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration, and the amount of information available to patients via the Internet is significant.

Anatomy of the Normal Spinal Disk and the Degenerative Process

The intervertebral disk is a weight-bearing and stress-absorbing structure located between the vertebral bodies of the spine. The disk itself is composed of three separate components: the nucleus pulposus, the anulus fibrosus, and the cartilaginous end plates. The central nucleus pulposus is a hydrated gel of proteoglycans with sulfated glycosaminoglycan side chains. The anulus fibrosus has 12 coaxial layers of collagen fibers that insert on the adjacent end plates at an oblique angle. These collagen fibers consist of both type I and type II collagen. The cartilage of the end plates is called hyaline cartilage. It is primarily a proteoglycan gel similar to the nucleus, but it is reinforced by collagen fibers. As wear occurs within the intervertebral disk, there is a progressive loss of cellularity, as well as hydration. With loss of hydration, the proteoglycans begin to lose their function. The amount of type I collagen gradually decreases, whereas the amount of type II collagen gradually increases. Annular fissures or tears begin to develop, loss of mechanical competence occurs, fibrovascular changes begin to develop in the subchondral bone, and as segmental instability develops, pain and radicular irritation may occur. Commonly seen in the later phases of degeneration are sclerotic changes in subchondral bone. End plate sclerosis as a result of aging and degeneration basically blocks the pores that allow diffusion of nutrients across the vertebral body end plate into the disk space. Because the disk space itself has relatively few cells to begin with, it does not require a tremendous amount of blood flow to maintain health and integrity. Conversely, the lack of blood flow to the disk associated with the aging process clearly speeds degenerative destruction of the individual disk components.

Arthroplasty Biomaterials

Spinal disk arthroplasty designs have clearly been influenced by progress made in the field of hip and knee joint arthroplasty. A number of the designs use a combination of metals and polymers. The polymers or plastics essentially provide some measure of shock absorption for the joint while also providing a low-friction surface for joint articulation. Polymers themselves are not strong enough to tolerate the stress of normal joints and are therefore always supported by a metal base. Articular surfaces may involve a metal-on-metal, metal-on-polymer, ceramic-on-polymer, or ceramic-on-ceramic interface. Two polymers that have been used successfully are polyurethane and the derived ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene (UHMWPE). Metallic devices have been constructed from solitary metals such as stainless steel, titanium, and cobalt. Newer devices take advantage of metallic alloys. Alloys are homogeneous mixtures or solid solutions of two or more metals. For example, cobalt-chromium alloy, cobalt-chromium-molybdenum alloy, and titanium-aluminum-vanadium7 have characteristics that make them uniquely suited for use in arthroplasty. The alloys seem to wear more slowly than polymers and may resist corrosion better than single-metal implants.

Regardless of whether the prosthesis is metal on metal or metal on polymer, the choice of material used in creating the device must be governed by three principles: articular surface wear, generation of wear debris, and host inflammatory response. The first is the extent of articular surface wear of the device based on repetitive motion cycles. A motion cycle is a typical bending motion of the spine such as flexion-extension or lateral bending. If multiplied by the number of times that the patient bends or twists in a day or a year, the number of motion cycles is considerable. The extent of weight bearing and joint range of motion (ROM) will also determine the amount of friction on the articulating surfaces and therefore the amount of destruction of the device over time. The second factor is generation of wear debris. Because there is no frictionless surface, load on a device combined with motion will generate wear debris. Wear debris, when trapped within the joint, can lead to rapid destruction of the articular surfaces, generation of toxic metal ions, and a profound inflammatory response, depending on the materials involved. The third principle is generation of the host inflammatory response. The inflammatory response can lead to resorption of the bone surrounding the prosthesis, which can result in loosening of the implant and ultimately failure. In general, the greater the degree of wear debris production, the greater the degree of inflammation, and the greater the extent of periprosthetic bone resorption.

To describe the complex interaction of biomaterials in motion preservation devices, a unique discipline known as tribology has developed. Tribology is the science and technology of interacting surfaces in relative motion. It includes the study and application of the principles of friction, lubrication, and wear. Typically, in a normal joint the cartilage in contact with the adjacent articulating surface will wear. That cartilage does cause an inflammatory response in the periarticular tissues, known as arthritis. In the case of disk arthroplasty, wear debris clearly causes an inflammatory reaction. In certain designs, such as those using stainless steel, the extent of the inflammatory response is proportional to the amount of wear debris generated. This inflammatory response is often manifested not only as the cardinal signs of inflammation (pain, heat, redness, and swelling) but also at the microscopic level, where macrophages are actually seen having engulfed metal or plastic fragments. On the molecular level, measurable quantities of potentially toxic metal ions are released into the circulation. The reaction of the body to the inevitable generation of wear debris is the third point to consider when choosing the appropriate biomaterial from which to fabricate an arthroplasty device. It is thought that the inflammatory response associated with wear debris is what leads to osteolysis surrounding the implant. Osteolysis can result in loosening of the implant, abnormal motion of the implant, and eventually misalignment.

Corrosion is an important principle to consider when selecting metallic biomaterials. The chemical reactions that are part of normal human metabolism produce an abundance of oxidizing agents, which creates a destructive environment for metals and alloys. Even the most corrosion-resistant biomaterials will undergo some degree of corrosion. Some metals such as stainless steel decay at a predictable rate, whereas others such as gold and platinum are extremely corrosion resistant. The process entails a coupled oxidation-reduction reaction in which one element gains electrons (oxidizing agent) and the other donates electrons (reducing agent). Most implanted metals, such as titanium, cobalt-chromium, and stainless steel, have a tendency to lose electrons in solution, and as a result, they have a high potential to corrode. The result is dissolution of the metal and the formation of metallic ions. All metals used for human implantation initially corrode and form a thin barrier film. This surface oxidative film offers both a chemical barrier to corrosion and prevents degradation of the deeper metal. If mechanical forces disrupt this layer, the underlying reactive metal atoms become susceptible to corrosion.

Use of a metallic alloy such as cobalt-chromium-molybdenum to minimize the effects of oxidative corrosion unfortunately does not eliminate the concern for wear of the articular surface. Any articulating surface will generate debris secondary to friction. The greater the physiologic load on the device, as well as the greater the ROM, the greater the generation of wear debris. In particular, Hellier and coauthors published the results of determining the absolute and relative wear volume rates of various metal alloys through simulation of an intervertebral disk prosthesis.8 It was found that among all the available alloys, a cobalt-chromium-molybdenum (CoCrMo) alloy generated the least amount of wear debris. It had an average wear volume rate of 0.093 mm3 per million cycles from an arthroplasty device, whereas a titanium alloy containing 6% aluminum and 4% vanadium (Ti6Al4V) had an average wear volume rate of 2.9 mm3 per million cycles. Schmiedberg and colleagues in 1994 used scanning electron microscopy to further define the size and shape of the wear debris fragments generated from an arthroplasty articular surface.7 The fragments from a titanium-aluminum-vanadium surface are extremely rough and irregularly shaped. The size of the fragments ranges from less than 1.0 µm to greater than 30 µm. Fragments from the cobalt-chromium-molybdenum alloy have an irregular polyhedral shape when the alloy was formed from a forged process, but the fragments have a spherical shape ranging between 5.0 and 30 µm when the alloy was formed from a hot isostatically pressed process. Catelas and associates published the results of their study investigating wear debris in metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty devices.9 The study, published in 2003, demonstrated a significant number of wear debris particles composed predominantly of chromium oxide particles, with estimated loss rates as high as 100 mm3/yr for hip arthroplasty.