Literature DB >> 17633486

Range of motion change after cervical arthroplasty with ProDisc-C and prestige artificial discs compared with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion.

Ung-Kyu Chang1, Daniel H Kim, Max C Lee, Rafer Willenberg, Se-Hoon Kim, Jesse Lim.   

Abstract

OBJECT: Range of motion (ROM) changes were evaluated at the surgically treated and adjacent segments in cadaveric specimens treated with two different cervical artificial discs compared with those measured in intact spine and fusion models.
METHODS: Eighteen cadaveric human cervical spines were tested in the intact state for the different modes of motion (extension, flexion, lateral bending, and axial rotation) up to 2 Nm. Three groups of specimens (fitted with either the ProDisc-C or Prestige II cervical artificial disc or submitted to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion [ACDF]) were tested after implantation at C6-7 level. The ROM values were measured at treated and adjacent segments, and these values were then compared with those measured in the intact spine.
RESULTS: At the surgically treated segment, the ROM increased after arthroplasty compared with the intact spine in extension (54% in the ProDisc-C group, 47% in the Prestige group) and in flexion (27% in the ProDisc-C group, 10% in the Prestige group). In bending and rotation, the postarthroplasty ROMs were greater than those of the intact spine (10% in the ProDisc-C group and 55% in the Prestige group in bending, 17% in the ProDisc-C group and 50% in the Prestige group in rotation). At the adjacent levels the ROMs decreased in all specimens treated with either artificial disc in all modes of motion (< 10%) except for extension at the inferior the level (29% decrease for ProDisc-C implant, 12% decrease for Prestige disc). The ROM for all motion modes in the ACDF-treated spine decreased at the treated level (range 18-44%) but increased at the adjacent levels (range 3-20%).
CONCLUSIONS: Both ProDisc-C and Prestige artificial discs were associated with increased ROM at the surgically treated segment compared with the intact spine with or without significance for all modes of testing. In addition, adjacent-level ROM decreased in all modes of motion except extension in specimens fitted with both artificial discs.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17633486     DOI: 10.3171/SPI-07/07/040

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Neurosurg Spine        ISSN: 1547-5646


  27 in total

Review 1.  Cervical and lumbar spinal arthroplasty: clinical review.

Authors:  T D Uschold; D Fusco; R Germain; L M Tumialan; S W Chang
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2011-10-27       Impact factor: 3.825

2.  In vitro investigation of a new dynamic cervical implant: comparison to spinal fusion and total disc replacement.

Authors:  Bastian Welke; Michael Schwarze; Christof Hurschler; Thorsten Book; Stephan Magdu; Dorothea Daentzer
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-12-18       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  Biomechanical effects of cervical arthroplasty with U-shaped disc implant on segmental range of motion and loading of surrounding soft tissue.

Authors:  Zhong Jun Mo; Yan Bin Zhao; Li Zhen Wang; Yu Sun; Ming Zhang; Yu Bo Fan
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-10-24       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 4.  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

5.  [Impact of anterior cervical fusion surgeries on adjacent segments: a finite element analysis].

Authors:  Teng Lu; Ting Zhang; Jun Dong; Quan-Jin Zang; Bao-Hui Yang; Dong Wang; Hao-Peng Li; Xi-Jng He
Journal:  Nan Fang Yi Ke Da Xue Xue Bao       Date:  2017-01-20

6.  Clinical and radiological results of total disc replacement in the cervical spine with preoperative reducible kyphosis.

Authors:  Yu Chen; Zhimin He; Haisong Yang; Xinwei Wang; Deyu Chen
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2012-12-28       Impact factor: 3.075

Review 7.  Complications of cervical total disc replacement and their associations with heterotopic ossification: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Nicholas Hui; Kevin Phan; Hoi Man Kevin Cheng; Yueh-Hsin Lin; Ralph J Mobbs
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2020-04-11       Impact factor: 3.134

8.  Unique biomechanical signatures of Bryan, Prodisc C, and Prestige LP cervical disc replacements: a finite element modelling study.

Authors:  Hoon Choi; Yuvaraj Purushothaman; Jamie Baisden; Narayan Yoganandan
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2019-10-12       Impact factor: 3.134

9.  Primary and coupled motions after cervical total disc replacement using a compressible six-degree-of-freedom prosthesis.

Authors:  A G Patwardhan; M N Tzermiadianos; P P Tsitsopoulos; L I Voronov; S M Renner; M L Reo; G Carandang; K Ritter-Lang; R M Havey
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2010-09-24       Impact factor: 3.134

10.  Cervical arthroplasty with Discover prosthesis: clinical outcomes and analysis of factors that may influence postoperative range of motion.

Authors:  Jun Li; Lei Liang; Xiao-fei Ye; Min Qi; Hua-jiang Chen; Wen Yuan
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-07-23       Impact factor: 3.134

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.