Background: The atlantoaxial complex contributes to significant neck movements, especially the axial rotation. Its instability is currently treated with various C1-C2 fusion techniques. This however, considerably hampers the neck movements and affects the quality of life; a C1-C2 motion preserving arthroplasty could potentially overcome this drawback. Objectives: We evaluate the range of motion (ROM) of lateral C1-C2 artificial joints in cadaveric models. Materials and Methods: This is an in vitro cadaveric biomechanical study. After C1-C2 arthroplasty through a posterior approach, the C1-C2 ROM was tested in 4 fresh-frozen human cadaveric specimens, before and after destabilization. Results: The mean axial rotation demonstrated after the placement of C1-C2 joint implants was 15.46 degrees on the right and 16.03 degrees on the left side; the prosthesis provided stability, with 46% of the baseline C1-C2 axial rotation on either side. The ROM achieved in the other axes was less compared with that of intact specimens. To initiate rotation, a higher moment of 1.5 Nm was required in the presence of joint implants compared to 0.5 NM in unimplanted specimens. Conclusions: In our preliminary ROM evaluation, the C1-C2 arthroplasty appears to be stable and provides about half of the range of atlantoaxial rotation. It has the potential for joint motion preservation in the treatment of atlantoaxial instability resulting from lateral C1-C2 joint pathologies.

Introduction The correlation between cervical alignment and clinical outcome of total disc replacement (TDR) surgery is arguable. We believe that this conflict exists because the parameters that influence the biomechanics of the cervical spine are not well understood, specifically the effect of TDR on different cervical alignments. Methods: A validated osseo-ligamentous model from C2-C7 was used in this study. The C2-C7 Cobb angle of the base model was modified to represent: lordotic (−10°), straight (0°), and kyphotic (+10°) cervical alignment. The TDR surgery was simulated at the C5-C6 segment. The range of motion (ROM), intradiscal pressure, annular stresses, and facet loads were computed for all the models. Results: The ROM results demonstrated kyphotic alignment after TDR surgery to be the most mobile when compared to intact base model (41% higher in flexion–extension, 51% higher in lateral bending, and 27% higher in axial rotation) followed by straight and lordotic alignment, respectively. The annular stresses for the kyphotic alignment when compared to intact base model were higher at the index level (33% higher in flexion–extension and 48% higher in lateral bending) compared to other alignments. The lordotic model demonstrated higher facet contact forces at the index level (75% higher in extension than kyphotic alignment, 51% higher in lateral bending than kyphotic alignment, and 78% higher in axial rotation than kyphotic alignment) when compared among the three alignment models. Conclusion: Preoperative cervical alignment should be an integral part of surgical planning for TDR surgery as different cervical alignments may significantly alter the postsurgical outcomes.