Can an Endplate‐conformed Cervical Cage Provide a Better Biomechanical Environment than a Typical Non‐conformed Cage?

Objectives To evaluate the biomechanical characteristics of endplate‐conformed cervical cages by finite element method ( FEM ) analysis and cadaver study. Methods Twelve specimens (C 2 –C 7 ) and a finite element model (C 3 –C 7 ) were subjected to biomechanical evaluations. In the cadaver study, specimens were randomly assigned to intact (I), endplate‐conformed (C) and non‐conformed (N) groups with C 4–5 discs as the treated segments. The morphologies of the endplate‐conformed cages were individualized according to CT images of group C and the cages fabricated with a 3‐D printer. The non‐conformed cages were wedge‐shaped and similar to commercially available grafts. Axial pre‐compression loads of 73.6 N and moment of 1.8 Nm were used to simulate flexion ( FLE ), extension ( EXT ), lateral bending ( LB ) and axial rotation ( AR ). Range of motion ( ROM ) at C 4–5 of each specimen was recorded and film sensors fixed between the cages and C 5 superior endplates were used to detect interface stress. A finite element model was built based on the CT data of a healthy male volunteer. The morphologies of the endplate‐conformed and wedge‐shaped, non‐conformed cervical cages were both simulated by a reverse engineering technique and implanted at the segment of C 4–5 in the finite element model for biomechanical evaluation. Force loading and grouping were similar to those applied in the cadaver study. ROM of C 4–5 in group I were recorded to validate the finite element model. Additionally, maximum cage‐endplate interface stresses, stress distribution contours on adjoining endplates, intra‐disc stresses and facet loadings at adjacent segments were measured and compared between groups. Results In the cadaver study, Group C showed a much lower interface stress in all directions of motion (all P < 0.05) and the ROM of C 4–5 was smaller in FLE ‐ EXT ( P = 0.001) but larger in AR ( P = 0.017). FEM analysis produced similar results: the model implanted with an endplate‐conformed cage presented a lower interface stress with a more uniform stress distribution than that implanted with a non‐conformed cage. Additionally, intra‐disc stress and facet loading at the adjacent segments were obviously increased in both groups C and N, especially those at the supra‐jacent segments. However, stress increase was milder in group C than in group N for all directions of motion. Conclusions Endplate‐conformed cages can decrease cage‐endplate interface stress in all directions of motion and increase cervical stability in FLE – EXT . Additionally, adjacent segments are possibly protected because intra‐disc stress and facet loading are smaller after endplate‐conformed cage implantation. However, axial stability was reduced in group C, indicating that endplate‐conformed cage should not be used alone and an anterior plate system is still important in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion.