Literature DB >> 15541680

Choosing a cervical disc replacement.

Helmut D Link1, Paul C McAfee, Luiz Pimenta.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND CONTENT: Three important basic scientific studies are presented that measured the volumetric density of longitudinal bony columns within the cervical vertebra. The most solid bone is lateral, adjacent to the uncovertebral joints in a radial pattern.
PURPOSE: To characterize the best footprint, profile and biomaterials to construct a cervical disc replacement. STUDY
DESIGN: A compilation of biomechanical and anatomical basic scientific studies.
METHODS: Microcomputed tomographic imaging, trabecular density and mineral distribution were quantitated from human cervical vertebra.
RESULTS: The lateral portions of the cervical vertebra are subjected to higher bending loads than the lumbar vertebral bodies. Therefore, the optimal prosthesis needs to be anchored in the lateral uncovertebral bone. To reduce the incidence of cervical subsidence, the prosthesis needs to be more rectangular than round to take advantage of the radially oriented lateral trabeculae. TiCaP (titanium/calcium phosphate) (Cervitech, Inc., Rockaway, NJ) bony ingrowth coating leads to 10% to 15% greater bony integration than plasma-sprayed titanium. TiCaP causes a supersaturated solution of CaP at the metal-bone interface, which enables reprecipitation of hydroxyapatite and superior bony integration. The optimum pore size of the ingrowth coating of the lumbar spine is 75 to 300 microns, whereas in the cervical spine the optimal ingrowth coating is 20 to 30 microns. This is an order of magnitude lower in pore size to match the smaller cervical trabecular architecture.
CONCLUSIONS: Kinematic considerations for the cervical spine show the load is 1/9th the load carried by the lumbar spine or 50 N per segment. Knowing the sliding distance and wear characteristics of conventional biomaterials (ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylene and cobalt chrome) demonstrates that the generation of particulate debris should be a very minor consideration with cervical arthroplasty.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15541680     DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2004.07.022

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine J        ISSN: 1529-9430            Impact factor:   4.166


  11 in total

1.  UHMWPE wear debris and tissue reactions are reduced for contemporary designs of lumbar total disc replacements.

Authors:  Sai Y Veruva; Todd H Lanman; Jorge E Isaza; Daniel W MacDonald; Steven M Kurtz; Marla J Steinbeck
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  Disc replacement using Pro-Disc C versus fusion: a prospective randomised and controlled radiographic and clinical study.

Authors:  A Nabhan; F Ahlhelm; T Pitzen; W I Steudel; J Jung; K Shariat; O Steimer; F Bachelier; D Pape
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2006-11-14       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 3.  [Cervical disc prostheses].

Authors:  E W Fritsch; T Pitzen
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 1.087

4.  Cervical disc replacement C5-6.

Authors:  Janusz Bonkowski; Ashwin Avadhani; Abhishek Manu; S Rajasekaran
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  Morphometry evaluations of cervical osseous endplates based on three dimensional reconstructions.

Authors:  Hang Feng; Haoxi Li; Zhaoyu Ba; Zhaoxiong Chen; Xinhua Li; Desheng Wu
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2018-08-09       Impact factor: 3.075

6.  Footprint mismatch in total cervical disc arthroplasty.

Authors:  Martin Thaler; Sebastian Hartmann; Michaela Gstöttner; Ricarda Lechner; Michael Gabl; Christian Bach
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2012-11-27       Impact factor: 3.134

7.  The distribution of mineral density in the cervical vertebral endplates.

Authors:  Magdalena Müller-Gerbl; Stefan Weißer; Ulrich Linsenmeier
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2008-01-12       Impact factor: 3.134

8.  In vivo analysis of cervical kinematics after implantation of a minimally constrained cervical artificial disc replacement.

Authors:  Heiko Koller; Oliver Meier; Juliane Zenner; Michael Mayer; Wolfgang Hitzl
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2012-11-24       Impact factor: 3.134

9.  Design of the PROCON trial: a prospective, randomized multi-center study comparing cervical anterior discectomy without fusion, with fusion or with arthroplasty.

Authors:  Ronald H M A Bartels; Roland Donk; Gert Jan van der Wilt; J André Grotenhuis; Dick Venderink
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2006-11-10       Impact factor: 2.362

10.  Update on cervical disc arthroplasty: where are we and where are we going?

Authors:  Jorge J Jaramillo-de la Torre; Jonathan N Grauer; James J Yue
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2008-06
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.