An experimental model of an interbody implant for stabilizing cervical vertebrae after removal of a herniated intervertebral disc based on ct-metric data (a brief review of the literature and own research) with its approbation in a cadaver experiment

An experimental model of an interbody implant for stabilizing cervical vertebrae after removal of a herniated intervertebral disc based on ct-metric data (a brief review of the literature and own research) with its approbation in a cadaver experiment

I. V. balyazin-Parfenov1, I. V. basankin2, V. A. balyazin1, E. V. balyazina1,

R. Sh. Abu Awimer1, A. b. bagaudinov2, A. A. Gulzatyan2, G. R. Tulendinov3,

G. P. zolotykh1, L. A. zibrova1, A. V. Skoropis1

ABSTRACT: Osteochondrosis of the cervical spine is 49.2 %, being the cause of pain syndrome in 60 % of cases, in 23 % of cases of sensitive disorders, in 18 % of motor disorders, as manifestations of cervical myelopathy. Anterior microdiscectomy with anterior access combined with stabilization is the gold standard of treatment. The origin of interbody implants remains foreign, the relevance of import substitution is extremely high.
THE PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: To develop an implant model based on CT-metric data for single-level interbody stabilization of the vertebrae of the cervical spine after removal of a herniated intervertebral disc.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: the analysis of metric indicators (length of height and interbody gaps at levels C 2/3, C 3/4, C 4/5, C 6/7, C 7/Th1) was carried out according to the CT of the cervical spine in 47 men and 122 women aged 18 to 75 years for the development of an implant for a single-level interbody stabilization of the vertebral neck, the implant holder for its its installations. A cadaver experiment was conducted to install an implant with fluoroscopic control.
RESULTS. An interbody implant has been developed, an implant holder for its installation, 2 universal samples of the implant model in length have been proposed, and the height for the patient is selected depending on the height of the interbody gap. The prototype of the implant was tested in a cadaver experiment. Fluoroscopic control showed a consistent stabilization of the bodies of adjacent vertebrae.
CONCLUSION. One of the variants of an experimental cage implant for single-level interbody stabilization of the operated segment has been developed, the installation of which is feasible both with open surgical intervention and minimally invasive endoscopic portal access. 

1. Tyulkin oN, Shchedrenok vv, Zakhmatova Tv, Kaurova Ta, moguchaya ov. experience of surgical treatmentfor spinal canal stenosisin patients with degenerativecervical and lumbar spine diseases. Spine Surgery. 2011;(4):69–74. (In russ.)] https:// doi.org/10.14531/ss2011.4.69–74

2. Hizhnyak mv, pedachenko yue, Tanaseychuk aF, Fuhrman aN. The immediate and long-term results of differentiated surgical treatment of patients with multiple hernias of the cervical spine. Voennaya Meditsina. 2017;(4):50–52. accessed june 6, 2022. (In russ.).] https://www.bsmu.by/militarymedicine/category70/

3. Abakirov md, Chmutin ge, al-Bawareed oa, panin ma, alenizi aa, petrosyan aS, aldin m alm, mayer ar. Interventional surgery effectiveness in treatment of the cervical spine and shoulder joint chronic pain. RUDN Journal of Medicine. 2022;26 (2):129–137. (In russ.)] https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-0245-2022-26-2-129-137

4. Shchedrenok vv, Sebelev KI, Chizhova mv, Ivanenko av, moguchaya ov. measurement of intervertebral foramen volume using spiral computed tomography in degenerative spine disease. Khirurgiya Pozvonochnika. 2011;(4):47–50. accessed june 6, 2022 (In russ.)] https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/izmerenie-obemamezhpozvonkovyh-kanalov-s-pomoschyu-spiralnoy-kompyuternoytomografii-pri-degenerativnyh-zabolevaniyah-pozvonochnika

5. Byvaltsev va, Shepelev vv, Nikiforov SB, Kalinin aa. Isolated and combined degenerative tandem cervical and lumbar spinal stenosis. Khirurgiya Pozvonochnika. 2016;13(2):52–61. accessed june 6, 2022 (In russ.)] https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/izolirovannyei-sochetannye-degenerativnye-tandem-stenozy-pozvonochnogokanala-sheynogo-i-poyasnichnogo-otdelov-pozvonochnika-obzor

6. Garayev Ismail d. Surgical treatment of discogenic compression of nervous elements of the cervical spine. Astrakhan Medical Journal. 2019;14(3):109–115. (In russ.)] https://doi.org/10.17021/2019.14.3.109.115

7. Charalampidis a, Hejrati N, ramakonar H, Kalsi pS, massicotte em, Fehlings mg. Clinical outcomes and revision rates following four level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Scientific Reports. 2022;12:5339. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-09389-1

8. Mazas S, Benzakour a, Castelain j-e, damade C, ghailane S., gille o. Cervical disc herniation: which surgery? International Orthopaedics (SICOT). 2019;43:761–766. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-018-4221-3

9. Ren Y, Yang J, Chen Ch-m, liu K, wang x-F, wei j-m, Shi l, liu w, jiang H, Zhou H, li Sh, xu Zh, Zhang w, deng Zh, Chu l. outcomes of discectomy by using Full-endoscopic visualization Technique via the Transcorporeal and Transdiscal approaches in the Treatment of Cervical Intervertebral disc Herniation: a Comparative Study. Biomed Res Int. 2020;2020:5613459. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/5613459

10. Zhang Т, guo N, gao g, liu H, li y, gao F, Zhang q, Tao x, yang w, wang y. Comparison of outcomes between Zero-p implant and anterior cervical plate interbody fusion systems for anterior cervical decompression and fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Orthop Surg Res. 2022;17 (1):47. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018–022–02940-w

11. Burtsev av, gubin av, ryabykh So, Sergeenko (pavlova) om, ochirova pv. Comparative characteristic of anterior and posterior stabilization of the cervical spine during surgical interventions. Spine Surgery. 2020;17(3):108–116. (In russ.)] https://doi.org/10.14531/ss2020.3.108–116

12. Grin’ aa, Kholodov Sa, aleinikova IB. endoprothesis of cervical intervertebral disks for treatment of diskal compressive myeloradiculopathy. Russian journal of neurosurgery. 2017;(3):79–87. accessed june 6, 2022 (In russ.)] https://www.therjn.com/jour/ article/view/455/0

13. Vishnevsky aa, Kazbanov vv, Batalov mS. prospects of using titanium implants with predetermined osteogenic properties. Spine Surgery. 2016;13(1):50–58. (In russ.)] https://doi.org/10.14531/ ss2016.1.50–58

14. Aleinikova IB, grin’ aa, Kaikov aK. The treatment outcomes at patients with degenerative dystrofic diseases of cervical and lumbar spine underwent surgery with usage of dynamic spinal implants. Russian Journal of Neurosurgery. 2015;(4):24–30. (In russ.)] https://doi.org/10.17650/1683-3295-2015-0-4-24-30

15. Chekhonatskiy aa, Komleva Ne, Chekhonatskiy va, Bubashvili aI. Some features of pathogenesis of the course, diagnosis and treatment of radicular and myelopathic syndromes of cervical osteochondrosis. Saratovskii Nauchno-Meditsinskii Zhurnal. 2020;16(1):64–68. accessed june 6, 2022 (In russ.)] https://ssmj.ru/2020/1/64

16. Usikov v. d., V. S. Kuftov, monashenko d. N., dolgushin a. a. mathematical calculations for modeling the damaged vertebral body with adjacent discs and the sagittal angle in the thoracic and lumbar regions. Russ. Neurosurg. journal named after prof. A. L. Polenov 2022;(4):98–111. (In russ.)]

17. Shevelev IN, Shulev yua, guschcha ao, Tissen Tp, remenets vv, denisenko yeI, Stepanenko vv. differential surgical treatment policy for patients with vertebral compression syndromes at the cervical level. Vopr Neirokhir Im N N Burdenko. 2003;(3):12–16. (In russ.)]