Literature DB >> 16135984

Kinematic analysis of the cervical spine following implantation of an artificial cervical disc.

Gwynedd E Pickett1, Jeffrey P Rouleau, Neil Duggal.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: Prospective cohort study.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the biomechanical profile of the cervical spine following cervical arthroplasty. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Spinal arthroplasty offers the promise of maintaining functional spinal motion, thereby potentially avoiding adjacent segment disease. Disc replacement may become the next gold standard for the treatment of degenerative cervical spine disease, and must be studied rigorously to ensure in vivo efficacy and safety.
METHODS: A total of 20 patients underwent single or 2-level implantation of the Bryan artificial cervical disc (Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Memphis TN) for treatment of cervical degenerative disc disease producing radiculopathy and/or myelopathy. Lateral neutral, flexion, and extension cervical radiographs were obtained before surgery and at intervals up to 24 months after surgery. Kinematic parameters, including sagittal rotation, horizontal translation, change in disc height, and center of rotation (COR), were assessed for each spinal level using quantitative motion analysis software.
RESULTS: Motion was preserved in the operated spinal segments (mean range of motion 7.8 degrees) up to 24 months following surgery. The relative contribution of each spinal segment to overall spinal sagittal rotation differed depending on whether the disc was placed at C5-C6 or C6-C7. Overall cervical motion (C2-C7) was moderately but significantly increased during late follow-up. Sagittal rotation, anterior and posterior disc height, translation, and COR coordinates did not change significantly following surgery. The COR was most frequently located posterior and inferior to the center of the disc space.
CONCLUSIONS: The Bryan artificial cervical disc provided in vivo functional spinal motion at the operated level, reproducing the preoperative kinematics of the spondylotic disc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16135984     DOI: 10.1097/01.brs.0000176320.82079.ce

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


  37 in total

1.  Effects of lumbar artificial disc design on intervertebral mobility: in vivo comparison between mobile-core and fixed-core.

Authors:  Joël Delécrin; Jérôme Allain; Jacques Beaurain; Jean-Paul Steib; Jean Huppert; Hervé Chataigner; Marc Ameil; Lucie Aubourg; Jean-Michel Nguyen
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2010-12-11       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 2.  Cervical spine alignment in disc arthroplasty: should we change our perspective?

Authors:  Alberto Di Martino; Rocco Papalia; Erika Albo; Leonardo Cortesi; Luca Denaro; Vincenzo Denaro
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-10-06       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.  The quantitative measurements of the intervertebral angulation and translation during cervical flexion and extension.

Authors:  Shyi-Kuen Wu; Li-Chieh Kuo; Haw-Chang H Lan; Sen-Wei Tsai; Chiung-Ling Chen; Fong-Chin Su
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2007-04-27       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  Effects of a cervical disc prosthesis on maintaining sagittal alignment of the functional spinal unit and overall sagittal balance of the cervical spine.

Authors:  Seok Woo Kim; Jae Hyuk Shin; Jose Joefrey Arbatin; Moon Soo Park; Yung Khee Chung; Paul C McAfee
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2007-08-25       Impact factor: 3.134

6.  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 7.  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

8.  Ranges of Cervical Intervertebral Disc Deformation During an In Vivo Dynamic Flexion-Extension of the Neck.

Authors:  Yan Yu; Haiqing Mao; Jing-Sheng Li; Tsung-Yuan Tsai; Liming Cheng; Kirkham B Wood; Guoan Li; Thomas D Cha
Journal:  J Biomech Eng       Date:  2017-06-01       Impact factor: 2.097

9.  Does sagittal position of the CTDR-related centre of rotation influence functional outcome? Prospective 2-year follow-up analysis.

Authors:  P Suchomel; L Jurák; J Antinheimo; J Pohjola; J Stulik; H-J Meisel; M Čabraja; C Woiciechowsky; B Bruchmann; I Shackleford; R Arregui; S Sola
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2014-02-20       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 10.  Multi-level cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) versus single-level CDA for the treatment of cervical disc diseases: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Hua Zhao; Lei Cheng; Yong Hou; Yi Liu; Ben Liu; Jyoti Joshi Mundra; Lin Nie
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2014-06-25       Impact factor: 3.134

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.