Download PDF
Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2018; 31(06): 413-421
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1667200
Original Research
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

In Vitro Biomechanical Comparison of Four Different Ventral Surgical Procedures on the Canine Fourth-Fifth Cervical Vertebral Motion Unit

Andreas Hermann
1   Department of Clinical Veterinary Medicine, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Berne, Berne, Switzerland
,
Benjamin Voumard
2   Institute for Surgical Technology and Biomechanics, Medical Faculty, University of Berne, Berne, Switzerland
,
Maja A. Waschk
1   Department of Clinical Veterinary Medicine, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Berne, Berne, Switzerland
,
Bianca F. Hettlich
1   Department of Clinical Veterinary Medicine, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Berne, Berne, Switzerland
,
Franck Forterre
1   Department of Clinical Veterinary Medicine, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Berne, Berne, Switzerland
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

10 September 2017

29 May 2018

Publication Date:
20 September 2018 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Introduction Biomechanical properties of four different ventral surgical procedures at the canine fourth-fifth cervical (C4–C5) vertebral motion unit (VMU) were assessed and compared with the intact C4–C5 VMU.

Materials and Methods The third-sixth cervical vertebral column from 24 skeletally mature Beagle cadavers were randomly allocated to four groups (standard ventral slot, slanted slot, inverted cone slot and intervertebral disc fenestration). Standardized tests were performed for each specimen in flexion/extension, lateral bending and axial rotation. The specimens were tested intact and after completion of one of the three slots techniques or fenestration. Pre-testing, cadaver specimens were confirmed to be free of disease by computed tomography (CT) examination. Post-testing, dimensions of slots and fenestration were determined based on a second CT examination.

Results All ventral surgical procedures increased range of motion (ROM) at the C4–C5 VMU compared with intact specimens. The only significant difference in the increase in ROM was observed between slanted slot and fenestration in flexion/extension. The standard ventral slot had a significant higher increase in ROM in extension compared with the other three techniques. The slanted slot had a significant lower increase in ROM in flexion.

Discussion/Conclusion The described ventral slot techniques have similar biomechanical effects on the canine cervical vertebral column. In contrast to the findings of a previous study, the slanted slot and inverted cone slot do not appear to provide a biomechanical benefit compared with standard ventral slot.

Keywords

biomechanics - range of motion - cervical spine - canine - dog

Author Contributions

Andreas Hermann, Benjamin Voumard and Franck Forterre contributed to conception of study, study design and acquisition of data and data analysis and interpretation. Maja A. Waschk contributed to acquisition of data and data analysis and interpretation. Bianca F. Hettlich contributed to study design and data analysis and interpretation. All authors drafted, revised and approved the submitted manuscript.


 

  • References

  • 1 Coates JR. Intervertebral disk disease. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 2000; 30 (01) 77-110 , vi vi.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Braund KG. Intervertebral disk disease. In: Bojrab MJ, Smeak DD, Bloomberg MS. , eds. Disease Mechanisms in Small Animal Surgery. Philadelphia, PA: Lea & Febiger; 1993: 960-970
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Cechner PE. Ventral cervical disc fenestration in the dog. A modified technique. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 1980
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Yturraspe DJ, Lumb WV. A dorsolateral muscle-separating approach for thoracolumbar intervertebral disk fenestration in the dog. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1973; 162 (12) 1037-1040
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Sterna J, Burzykowski T. Assessment of the usefulness of the fenestration method in cases of disc extrusion in the cervical and thoraco-lumbar spine in chondrodystrophic dogs. Pol J Vet Sci 2008; 11 (01) 55-62
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Gilpin GN. Evaluation of three techniques of ventral decompression of the cervical spinal cord in the dog. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1976; 168 (04) 325-328
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Seim HB. Prata RG. Ventral decompression for the treatment of cervical disk disease in the dog: a review of 54 cases. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 1982; 18: 233-240
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Swaim SF. Ventral decompression of the cervical spinal cord in the dog. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1973; 162 (04) 276-277
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Swaim SF, Hyams D. Clinical observations and client evaluation of ventral decompression for cervical intervertebral disk protrusion. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1982; 181 (03) 259-260
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Smith B, Hosgood G, Kerwin S. Ventral slot decompression for cervical intervertebral disc disease in 112 dogs. Aust Vet Pract 1997; 27: 58-63
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Clark DM. An analysis of intraoperative and early postoperative mortality associated with cervical spinal decompressive surgery in the dog. J Small Anim Pract 1986; 22: 739-744
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Stauffer JL, Gleed RD, Short CE, Erb HN, Schukken YH. Cardiac dysrhythmias during anesthesia for cervical decompression in the dog. Am J Vet Res 1988; 49 (07) 1143-1146
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Boydell P. Horner's syndrome following cervical spinal surgery in the dog. J Small Anim Pract 1995; 36 (11) 510-512
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Wheeler SJ, Sharp NJH. Small Animal Spinal Disorders: Diagnosis and Surgery. London: Mosby-Wolfe; 1994: 68-84
    Google Scholar
  • 15 Hoerlein BJ. Intervertebral disk disease. In Oliver JE, Hoerlein BF, Mayhew IG. , eds. Veterinary Neurology. Philadelphia, PA: WB Saunders; 1987: 321-341
    Google Scholar
  • 16 Lemarié RJ, Kerwin SC, Partington BP, Hosgood G. Vertebral subluxation following ventral cervical decompression in the dog. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 2000; 36 (04) 348-358
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Macy NB, Les CM, Stover SM, Kass PH. Effect of disk fenestration on sagittal kinematics of the canine C5-C6 intervertebral space. Vet Surg 1999; 28 (03) 171-179
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Goring RL. Beale BS, Faulkner RF. The inverted cone decompression technique: a surgical treatment for cervical vertebral instability “Wobbler syndrome” in Doberman Pinschers. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 1991;27(403–409)
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Slocum B, Slocum TD. Slanted slot for cervical decompression. 4th ed. Current Techniques in Small Animal Surgery. Philadelphia, PA: William & Wilkins; 1998: 826-828
    Google Scholar
  • 20 Platt SR, DaCosta RC. Cervical spine. In: Tobias KM, Johnston SA. , eds. Veterinary Surgery: Small Animal. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2013: 430-445
    Google Scholar
  • 21 McCartney W. Comparison of recovery times and complication rates between a modified slanted slot and the standard ventral slot for the treatment of cervical disc disease in 20 dogs. J Small Anim Pract 2007; 48 (09) 498-501
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Hofstetter M, Gédet P, Doherr M, Ferguson SJ, Forterre F. Biomechanical analysis of the three-dimensional motion pattern of the canine cervical spine segment C4-C5. Vet Surg 2009; 38 (01) 49-58
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Fauber AE, Wade JA, Lipka AE, McCabe GP, Aper RL. Effect of width of disk fenestration and a ventral slot on biomechanics of the canine C5-C6 vertebral motion unit. Am J Vet Res 2006; 67 (11) 1844-1848
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Smith GK, Walter MC. Spinal decompressive procedures and dorsal compartment injuries: comparative biomechanical study in canine cadavers. Am J Vet Res 1988; 49 (02) 266-273
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Koehler CL, Stover SM, LeCouteur RA, Schulz KS, Hawkins DA. Effect of a ventral slot procedure and of smooth or positive-profile threaded pins with polymethylmethacrylate fixation on intervertebral biomechanics at treated and adjacent canine cervical vertebral motion units. Am J Vet Res 2005; 66 (04) 678-687
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Yang H, Lambrechts NE, Lehner M. , et al. Effects of conventional and slanted ventral slot procedures on the biomechanical behavior of the C5-C6 vertebral motion unit in dogs. Am J Vet Res 2016; 77 (08) 846-853
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Wilke HJ, Wenger K, Claes L. Testing criteria for spinal implants: recommendations for the standardization of in vitro stability testing of spinal implants. Eur Spine J 1998; 7 (02) 148-154
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Wilke HJ, Jungkunz B, Wenger K, Claes LE. Spinal segment range of motion as a function of in vitro test conditions: effects of exposure period, accumulated cycles, angular-deformation rate, and moisture condition. Anat Rec 1998; 251 (01) 15-19
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Toombs JP, Waters D. Intervertebral disc disease. In: Slatter D. , ed. Textbook of Small Animal Surgery. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders; 2003: 1193-1209
    Google Scholar
  • 30 Goel VK, Nishiyama K, Weinstein JN, Liu YK. Mechanical properties of lumbar spinal motion segments as affected by partial disc removal. Spine 1986; 11 (10) 1008-1012
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Nolan Jr JP, Sherk HH. Biomechanical evaluation of the extensor musculature of the cervical spine. Spine 1988; 13 (01) 9-11
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Panjabi MM, Crisco JJ, Vasavada A. , et al. Mechanical properties of the human cervical spine as shown by three-dimensional load-displacement curves. Spine 2001; 26 (24) 2692-2700
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Smit TH. The use of a quadruped as an in vivo model for the study of the spine - biomechanical considerations. Eur Spine J 2002; 11 (02) 137-144
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Adamo PF, Kobayashi H, Markel M, Vanderby Jr R. In vitro biomechanical comparison of cervical disk arthroplasty, ventral slot procedure, and smooth pins with polymethylmethacrylate fixation at treated and adjacent canine cervical motion units. Vet Surg 2007; 36 (08) 729-741
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Wen N, Lavaste F, Santin JJ, Lassau JP. Three-dimensional biomechanical properties of the human cervical spine in vitro. I. Analysis of normal motion. Eur Spine J 1993; 2 (01) 2-11
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar