Literature DB >> 16151712

Reliability of motion measurements after total disc replacement: the spike and the fin method.

Balkan Cakir1, Marcus Richter, Wolfhart Puhl, René Schmidt.   

Abstract

As motion preservation is one of the main postulated advantages after total disc replacement (TDR) of the lumbar spine, the quantification of the mobility after TDR seems of special clinical interest. Yet, the best method to assess range of motion (ROM) after TDR remains unclear. The aim of the study was the calculation of 95%-confidence intervals (95%-C.I.) for the measurement error accompanying: (1) different methods (2) different observers and (3) different levels of training for radiographic motion analysis after TDR. In 12 patients the level L4-L5 and in another 12 patients level L5-S1 were measured with the Cobb and the superimposition method on flexion-extension X-rays after monosegmental TDR. Both methods were adopted as the landmarks used the spikes of the prosthesis instead the endplates (spike method) and the fin of the prosthesis instead the whole vertebral body (fin method). Measurements were performed by two experienced (O-I and O-III) and one inexperienced observer (O-II). The adopted spike and fin method showed a better reliability compared to the reported results of the original Cobb and superimposition method. The method used was not clinically relevant for the intraobserver reliability in the experienced observer (95%-C.I.: +/-2.0 degrees for the fin and +/-2.1 for the spike method) and for the interobserver reliability for two experienced observers (95%-C.I.: -2.8 degrees /+2.8 degrees for the fin and -2.9 degrees /+3.1 degrees for the spike method). The intraobserver reliability for the inexperienced observer was inferior for both methods compared to the experienced observer but no clinically relevant differences could be observed in interobserver reliability measures. The spike and fin method are reliable methods for study protocols dealing with angular motion after TDR as clinically valid conclusions can be drawn with an accuracy of about +/-2 degrees for the same observer and with an accuracy of about +/-3 degrees for a different observer.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16151712      PMCID: PMC3489412          DOI: 10.1007/s00586-005-0942-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Spine J        ISSN: 0940-6719            Impact factor:   3.134


  33 in total

1.  Measurement of spinal mobility: a comparison of three methods.

Authors:  P M Reynolds
Journal:  Rheumatol Rehabil       Date:  1975-08

2.  Lumbar disc replacement: preliminary results with ProDisc II after a minimum follow-up period of 1 year.

Authors:  Patrick Tropiano; Russel C Huang; Federico P Girardi; Thierry Marnay
Journal:  J Spinal Disord Tech       Date:  2003-08

3.  Lumbosacral segmental motion in normal individuals. Have we been measuring instability properly?

Authors:  S D Boden; S W Wiesel
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1990-06       Impact factor: 3.468

4.  Reliability of clinical measurements of forward bending using the modified fingertip-to-floor method.

Authors:  M G Gauvin; D L Riddle; J M Rothstein
Journal:  Phys Ther       Date:  1990-07

5.  Accelerated degeneration of the segment adjacent to a lumbar fusion.

Authors:  C K Lee
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1988-03       Impact factor: 3.468

6.  Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement.

Authors:  J M Bland; D G Altman
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1986-02-08       Impact factor: 79.321

7.  Three-dimensional x-ray analysis of normal movement in the lumbar spine.

Authors:  M Pearcy; I Portek; J Shepherd
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1984-04       Impact factor: 3.468

8.  Motion of the lumbar spine with special reference to the stabilizing effect of posterior fusion. An experimental study on autopsy specimens.

Authors:  S D Rolander
Journal:  Acta Orthop Scand       Date:  1966

9.  Use of noninvasive techniques for quantification of spinal range-of-motion in normal subjects and chronic low-back dysfunction patients.

Authors:  T G Mayer; A F Tencer; S Kristoferson; V Mooney
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1984-09       Impact factor: 3.468

10.  Lumbar spine arthroplasty: early results using the ProDisc II: a prospective randomized trial of arthroplasty versus fusion.

Authors:  Jack E Zigler; Timothy A Burd; Emiliano N Vialle; Barton L Sachs; Ralph F Rashbaum; Donna D Ohnmeiss
Journal:  J Spinal Disord Tech       Date:  2003-08
View more
  13 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

2.  Total lumbar disc replacement in athletes: clinical results, return to sport and athletic performance.

Authors:  Christoph J Siepe; Karsten Wiechert; Mohamed F Khattab; Andreas Korge; H Michael Mayer
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2007-01-05       Impact factor: 3.134

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.  Radiographic total disc replacement angle measurement accuracy using the Oxford Cobbometer: precision and bias.

Authors:  Victor Kosmopoulos; Kosmas Stafylas; John McManus; Constantin Schizas
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2008-05-22       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  Consequences of patient position in the radiographic measurement of artificial disc replacement angles.

Authors:  Victor Kosmopoulos; John McManus; Constantin Schizas
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2007-09-11       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 6.  Do in vivo kinematic studies provide insight into adjacent segment degeneration? A qualitative systematic literature review.

Authors:  Masoud Malakoutian; David Volkheimer; John Street; Marcel F Dvorak; Hans-Joachim Wilke; Thomas R Oxland
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-06-09       Impact factor: 3.134

7.  Circumferential dynamic stabilization of the lumbar spine: a biomechanical analysis.

Authors:  Wolfram Käfer; Balkan Cakir; Stefan Midderhoff; Heiko Reichel; Hans-Joachim Wilke
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2014-04-11       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 8.  [Adjacent segment movement after monosegmental total disc replacement and monosegmental fusion of segments L4/5].

Authors:  M Däxle; T Kocak; F Lattig; H Reichel; B Cakir
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 1.087

9.  We Need to Talk about Lumbar Total Disc Replacement.

Authors:  Stephen Beatty
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2018-08-03

10.  Is Degenerative Spondylolisthesis a Contraindication for Total Disc Replacement? Kineflex Lumbar Disc Replacement in 7 Patients With 24-Month Follow-up.

Authors:  Ulrich R Hähnle; Karen Sliwa; Malan de Villiers; Ian R Weinberg; Barry M B E Sweet; Geoffrey P Candy
Journal:  SAS J       Date:  2008-06-01
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.