STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective review of lumbar total disc replacement (TDR) radiographs. OBJECTIVE: To determine the error and variability in measuring TDR radiographic range of motion (ROM). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Motion preservation is the driving force behind lumbar TDR technology. In the recent literature, sagittal radiographic TDR ROM as low as 2 degrees has been reported. In these studies, ROM was determined by using the Cobb method to measure TDR sagittal alignment angles in flexion-extension lateral radiographs. However, previous studies in the spinal deformity literature have shown that the Cobb method is very susceptible to measurement error. METHODS: There were 5 observers, including 2 attending orthopedic spine surgeons, 1 spine fellow, 1 fifth-year resident, and 1 fourth-year resident, who measured the ROM of 50 ProDisc II (Synthes Spine Solutions, New York, NY) TDRs on standard flexion-extension lumbar spine radiograph sets. Repeated measurements were made on 2 occasions using the Cobb method. Measurement variability was calculated using 3 statistical methods. RESULTS: The 3 statistical methods resulted in extremely similar values for TDR ROM observer variability. Overall, the intraobserver variability of TDR ROM measurement was +/-4.6 degrees, and interobserver variability was +/-5.2 degrees . CONCLUSIONS: To be 95% certain that an implanted TDR prosthesis has any sagittal motion, a ROM of at least 4.6 degrees must be observed, which is the upper limit of intraobserver measurement variability for a TDR with a true ROM of 0 degrees. To be 95% certain that a change in TDR ROM has occurred between 2 measurements by the same observer, a change in ROM of at least 9.6 degrees must be observed (the entire range of +/-4.6 degrees intraobserver variability). ROM measurement variability should be considered when evaluating the success or failure of motion preservation in lumbar TDR.
STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective review of lumbar total disc replacement (TDR) radiographs. OBJECTIVE: To determine the error and variability in measuring TDR radiographic range of motion (ROM). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Motion preservation is the driving force behind lumbar TDR technology. In the recent literature, sagittal radiographic TDR ROM as low as 2 degrees has been reported. In these studies, ROM was determined by using the Cobb method to measure TDR sagittal alignment angles in flexion-extension lateral radiographs. However, previous studies in the spinal deformity literature have shown that the Cobb method is very susceptible to measurement error. METHODS: There were 5 observers, including 2 attending orthopedic spine surgeons, 1 spine fellow, 1 fifth-year resident, and 1 fourth-year resident, who measured the ROM of 50 ProDisc II (Synthes Spine Solutions, New York, NY) TDRs on standard flexion-extension lumbar spine radiograph sets. Repeated measurements were made on 2 occasions using the Cobb method. Measurement variability was calculated using 3 statistical methods. RESULTS: The 3 statistical methods resulted in extremely similar values for TDR ROM observer variability. Overall, the intraobserver variability of TDR ROM measurement was +/-4.6 degrees, and interobserver variability was +/-5.2 degrees . CONCLUSIONS: To be 95% certain that an implanted TDR prosthesis has any sagittal motion, a ROM of at least 4.6 degrees must be observed, which is the upper limit of intraobserver measurement variability for a TDR with a true ROM of 0 degrees. To be 95% certain that a change in TDR ROM has occurred between 2 measurements by the same observer, a change in ROM of at least 9.6 degrees must be observed (the entire range of +/-4.6 degrees intraobserver variability). ROM measurement variability should be considered when evaluating the success or failure of motion preservation in lumbar TDR.
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
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
Authors: Justin F M Hollenbeck; Jill A Fattor; Vikas Patel; Evalina Burger; Paul J Rullkoetter; Christopher M J Cain Journal: Int J Spine Surg Date: 2019-02-22