Manohar Panjabi1, Gweneth Henderson, Celeste Abjornson, James Yue. 1. Biomechanics Research Laboratory, Department of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT 06520-8071, USA. manoharpanjabi@gmail.com
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: An in vitro human cadaveric biomechanical study. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate intervertebral rotation changes due to lumbar ProDisc-L compared with simulated fusion, using follower load and multidirectional testing. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Artificial discs, as opposed to the fusions, are thought to decrease the long-term accelerated degeneration at adjacent levels. A biomechanical assessment can be helpful, as the long-term clinical evaluation is impractical. METHODS: Six fresh human cadaveric lumbar specimens (T12-S1) underwent multidirectional testing in flexion-extension, bilateral lateral bending, and bilateral torsion using the Hybrid test method. First, intact specimen total range of rotation (T12-S1) was determined. Second, using pure moments again, this range of rotation was achieved in each of the 5 constructs: A) ProDisc-L at L5-S1; B) fusion at L5-S1; C) ProDisc-L at L4-L5 and fusion at L5-S1; D) ProDisc-L at L4-L5 and L5-S1; and E) 2-level fusion at L4-L5 to L5-S1. Significant changes in the intervertebral rotations due to each construct were determined at the operated and nonoperated levels using repeated measures single factor ANOVA and Bonferroni statistical tests (P < 0.05). Adjacent-level effects (ALEs) were defined as the percentage changes in intervertebral rotations at the nonoperated levels due to the constructs. RESULTS: One- and 2-level ProDisc-L constructs showed only small ALE in any of the 3 rotations. In contrast, 1- and 2-level fusions showed increased ALE in all 3 directions (average, 7.8% and 35.3%, respectively, for 1 and 2 levels). In the disc plus fusion combination (construct C), the ALEs were similar to the 1-level fusion alone. CONCLUSIONS: In general, ProDisc-L preserved physiologic motions at all spinal levels, while the fusion simulations resulted in significant ALE.
STUDY DESIGN: An in vitro human cadaveric biomechanical study. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate intervertebral rotation changes due to lumbar ProDisc-L compared with simulated fusion, using follower load and multidirectional testing. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Artificial discs, as opposed to the fusions, are thought to decrease the long-term accelerated degeneration at adjacent levels. A biomechanical assessment can be helpful, as the long-term clinical evaluation is impractical. METHODS: Six fresh human cadaveric lumbar specimens (T12-S1) underwent multidirectional testing in flexion-extension, bilateral lateral bending, and bilateral torsion using the Hybrid test method. First, intact specimen total range of rotation (T12-S1) was determined. Second, using pure moments again, this range of rotation was achieved in each of the 5 constructs: A) ProDisc-L at L5-S1; B) fusion at L5-S1; C) ProDisc-L at L4-L5 and fusion at L5-S1; D) ProDisc-L at L4-L5 and L5-S1; and E) 2-level fusion at L4-L5 to L5-S1. Significant changes in the intervertebral rotations due to each construct were determined at the operated and nonoperated levels using repeated measures single factor ANOVA and Bonferroni statistical tests (P < 0.05). Adjacent-level effects (ALEs) were defined as the percentage changes in intervertebral rotations at the nonoperated levels due to the constructs. RESULTS: One- and 2-level ProDisc-L constructs showed only small ALE in any of the 3 rotations. In contrast, 1- and 2-level fusions showed increased ALE in all 3 directions (average, 7.8% and 35.3%, respectively, for 1 and 2 levels). In the disc plus fusion combination (construct C), the ALEs were similar to the 1-level fusion alone. CONCLUSIONS: In general, ProDisc-L preserved physiologic motions at all spinal levels, while the fusion simulations resulted in significant ALE.
Authors: Qingan Zhu; Eyal Itshayek; Claire F Jones; Timothy Schwab; Chadwick R Larson; Lawrence G Lenke; Peter A Cripton Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2012-04-25 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Balkan Cakir; Marcus Richter; Werner Schmoelz; René Schmidt; Heiko Reichel; Hans Joachim Wilke Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2009-10-31 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Parmenion P Tsitsopoulos; Bartosz Wojewnik; Leonard I Voronov; Robert M Havey; Susan M Renner; Julia Zelenakova; Braden McIntosh; Gerard Carandang; Celeste Abjornson; Avinash G Patwardhan Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2012-04-04 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Stephane Aunoble; Robert Meyrat; Yasser Al Sawad; C Tournier; Philip Leijssen; Jean-Charles Le Huec Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2009-11-04 Impact factor: 3.134