Literature DB >> 12902958

The implications of constraint in lumbar total disc replacement.

Russel C Huang1, Federico P Girardi, Frank P Cammisa, Timothy M Wright.   

Abstract

Lumbar total disc replacement (TDR) is an evolving technique that has the potential to replace arthrodesis as the gold standard surgical treatment of degenerative disc disease. The interaction between host anatomy and physiology and the biomechanical properties of TDR implants will determine the quality of long-term clinical results. However, there is scant literature addressing this subject. The purpose of this article is to discuss the implications of biomechanical constraint in TDR. Based upon available data for normal motion segments and the design of two TDRs currently in clinical trials, unconstrained designs appear to have a kinematic advantage. They are more likely to provide a physiologic mobile instantaneous axis of rotation (IAR), which may explain why they display greater range of motion in vivo. Their lack of constraint may prevent excessive facet joint or capsuloligamentous loads in the extremes of flexion and extension. Furthermore, since the IAR is mobile, they may be less sensitive to small errors in implant placement. On the other hand, constrained devices appear to have an advantage in protection of the posterior elements from shear loading. Spinal shear loads of considerable magnitude occur during activities of daily living. Whether the transference of stresses to the implant and implant-bone interface is clinically significant is unknown. Although this article focuses on two specific TDR designs, future designs will need to account for the same kinematic and loading concerns regarding constraint. We hope this discussion will assist clinicians and researchers in the design, selection, and clinical comparison of present and future TDR implants.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12902958     DOI: 10.1097/00024720-200308000-00014

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Spinal Disord Tech        ISSN: 1536-0652


  20 in total

Review 1.  Cervical and lumbar spinal arthroplasty: clinical review.

Authors:  T D Uschold; D Fusco; R Germain; L M Tumialan; S W Chang
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2011-10-27       Impact factor: 3.825

2.  [Biomechanical consequences of variations in artificial disc positioning. A finite element study on the lumbar spine].

Authors:  T Zander; A Rohlmann; B Bock; G Bergmann
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 1.087

Review 3.  Design concepts in lumbar total disc arthroplasty.

Authors:  Fabio Galbusera; Chiara M Bellini; Thomas Zweig; Stephen Ferguson; Manuela T Raimondi; Claudio Lamartina; Marco Brayda-Bruno; Maurizio Fornari
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2008-10-23       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  The effect of different design concepts in lumbar total disc arthroplasty on the range of motion, facet joint forces and instantaneous center of rotation of a L4-5 segment.

Authors:  Hendrik Schmidt; Stefan Midderhoff; Kyle Adkins; Hans-Joachim Wilke
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  Use of a personalized hybrid biomechanical model to assess change in lumbar spine function with a TDR compared to an intact spine.

Authors:  Gregory G Knapik; Ehud Mendel; William S Marras
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-03-29       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 6.  Biomechanics of intervertebral disk degeneration.

Authors:  Nozomu Inoue; Alejandro A Espinoza Orías
Journal:  Orthop Clin North Am       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 2.472

7.  Effect of multilevel lumbar disc arthroplasty on spine kinematics and facet joint loads in flexion and extension: a finite element analysis.

Authors:  Hendrik Schmidt; Fabio Galbusera; Antonius Rohlmann; Thomas Zander; Hans-Joachim Wilke
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2010-04-02       Impact factor: 3.134

8.  Clinical, radiological, histological and retrieval findings of Activ-L and Mobidisc total disc replacements: a study of two patients.

Authors:  Shennah Austen; Ilona M Punt; Jack P M Cleutjens; Paul C Willems; Steven M Kurtz; Daniel W MacDonald; Lodewijk W van Rhijn; André van Ooij
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2012-01-15       Impact factor: 3.134

9.  The role of prosthesis design on segmental biomechanics: semi-constrained versus unconstrained prostheses and anterior versus posterior centre of rotation.

Authors:  Hans-Joachim Wilke; René Schmidt; Marcus Richter; Werner Schmoelz; Heiko Reichel; Balkan Cakir
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2010-09-10       Impact factor: 3.134

10.  Footprint mismatch in lumbar total disc arthroplasty.

Authors:  Michaela Gstoettner; Gstoettner Michaela; Denise Heider; Heider Denise; Michael Liebensteiner; Christian Michael Bach; Bach Christian Michael
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2008-09-13       Impact factor: 3.134

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.