Biomechanical comparison of a two-level Maverick disc replacement with a hybrid one-level disc replacement and one-level anterior lumbar interbody fusion.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Multilevel lumbar disc disease (MLDD) is a common finding in many patients. Surgical solutions for MLDD include fusion or disc replacement. The hybrid model, combining fusion and disc replacement, is a potential alternative for patients who require surgical intervention at both L5-S1 and L4-L5. The indications for this hybrid model could be posterior element insufficiency, severe facet pathology, calcified ligamentum flavum, and subarticular disease confirming spinal stenosis at L5-S1 level, or previous fusion surgery at L5-S1 and new symptomatic pathology at L4-L5. Biomechanical data of the hybrid model with the Maverick disc and anterior fusion are not available in the literature.

PURPOSE: To compare the biomechanical properties of a two-level Maverick disc replacement at L4-L5, L5-S1, and a hybrid model consisting of an L4-L5 Maverick disc replacement with an L5-S1 anterior lumbar interbody fusion using multidirectional flexibility test.

STUDY DESIGN: An in vitro human cadaveric biomechanical study.

METHODS: Six fresh human cadaveric lumbar specimens (L4-S1) were subjected to unconstrained load in axial torsion (AT), lateral bending (LB), flexion (F), extension (E), and flexion-extension (FE) using multidirectional flexibility test. Four surgical treatments-intact, one-level Maverick at L5-S1, two-level Maverick between L4 and S1, and the hybrid model (anterior fusion at L5-S1 and Maverick at L4-L5) were tested in sequential order. The range of motion of each treatment was calculated.

RESULTS: The Maverick disc replacement slightly reduced intact motion in AT and LB at both levels. The total FE motion was similar to the intact motion. However, the E motion is significantly increased (approximately 50% higher) and F motion is significantly decreased (30%-50% lower). The anterior fusion using a cage and anterior plate significantly reduced spinal motion compared with the condition (p<.05). No significant differences were found between two-level Maverick disc prosthesis and the hybrid model in terms of all motion types at L4-L5 level (p>.05).

CONCLUSION: The Maverick disc preserved total motion but altered the motion pattern of the intact condition. This result is similar to unconstrained devices such as Charité. The motion at L4-L5 of the hybrid model is similar to that of two-level Maverick disc replacement. The fusion procedure using an anterior plate significantly reduced intact motion. Clinical studies are recommended to validate the efficacy of the hybrid model.