Literature DB >> 15599283

Intervertebral disc replacement maintains cervical spine kinetics.

Christian M Puttlitz1, Marc Antoine Rousseau, Zheng Xu, Serena Hu, Bobby K-B Tay, Jeffrey C Lotz.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: An in vitro biomechanical study of C4-C5 intervertebral disc replacement using a cadaveric model.
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the degree of motion afforded by a ball-and-socket cervical intervertebral disc prosthesis design. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Intervertebral disc prostheses designs attempt to restore or maintain cervical disc motion after anterior cervical discectomy and reduce the likelihood of accelerated degeneration in adjacent discs by maintaining normal motion at the affected disc level. Surprisingly, the actual kinetic and biomechanical effects that cervical disc arthroplasty imparts on the spine have not been widely reported. Accordingly, we investigated what effect implanting a cervical disc prosthesis has on the range of motion at the affected level as well as how it changes the coupled motion patterns at the level of implantation.
METHODS: Six fresh-frozen human cadaveric cervical spines (C2-C7) were used in this study. We evaluated two different spinal conditions: intact and after disc replacement at C4-C5. Compression (using the follower load concept) and pure moment loading were applied to the specimen. Range of motion was measured using an optical tracking system. Statistical differences between the intact and replaced condition range of motion was determined using analysis of variance with post hoc comparisons (alpha = 0.05).
RESULTS: The data indicate that the intervertebral disc prosthesis approximated the intact motion in all three rotation planes at the affected level. Finally, changes in cervical coupled rotations, specifically lateral bending during axial rotation loading and axial rotation during lateral bending loading, were not statistically significant between the two tested conditions.
CONCLUSIONS: Our data demonstrate that a ball-and-socket design can replicate physiologic motion at the affected and adjacent levels. More importantly, the data indicate that motion coupling, which is most dramatic in the cervical spine and plays an important biomechanical role, is maintained.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15599283     DOI: 10.1097/01.brs.0000147739.42354.a9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)        ISSN: 0362-2436            Impact factor:   3.468


  34 in total

1.  Assessment of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Artifact Following Cervical Total Disc Arthroplasty.

Authors:  Amir H Fayyazi; Jennifer Taormina; David Svach; Jeff Stein; Nathaniel R Ordway
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2015-07-14

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 canal stenosis and adjacent segment degeneration after anterior cervical arthrodesis.

Authors:  Jing Tao Zhang; Jun Ming Cao; Fan Tao Meng; Yong Shen
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-04-23       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  Cervical disc prosthesis versus arthrodesis using one-level, hybrid and two-level constructs: an in vitro investigation.

Authors:  Cédric Barrey; Sophie Campana; Sylvain Persohn; Gilles Perrin; Wafa Skalli
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-08-11       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 6.  Parameters that effect spine biomechanics following cervical disc replacement.

Authors:  Vijay K Goel; Ahmad Faizan; Vivek Palepu; Sanghita Bhattacharya
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-05-20       Impact factor: 3.134

7.  Relevance of using a compressive preload in the cervical spine: an experimental and numerical simulating investigation.

Authors:  Cédric Barrey; Marc-Antoine Rousseau; Sylvain Persohn; Sophie Campana; Gilles Perrin; Wafa Skalli
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2015-04-07

8.  Operated and adjacent segment motions for fusion versus cervical arthroplasty: a pilot study.

Authors:  Tomoya Terai; Ahmad Faizan; Koichi Sairyo; Vijay K Goel
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 4.176

9.  Cervical total disc replacement (TDR).

Authors:  Nils Hansen-Algenstaedt; Salah Khalifah; Melanie Liem; Johannes Holz; Alf Giese
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2016-12       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 10.  Cervical disc replacement surgery: indications, technique, and technical pearls.

Authors:  Dante Leven; Joshua Meaike; Kris Radcliff; Sheeraz Qureshi
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2017-06
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.