Literature DB >> 18173340

Distribution of in vivo and in vitro range of motion following 1-level arthroplasty with the CHARITE artificial disc compared with fusion.

Bryan W Cunningham1, Paul C McAfee, Fred H Geisler, Gwen Holsapple, Karen Adams, Scott L Blumenthal, Richard D Guyer, Andrew Cappuccino, John J Regan, Ira L Fedder, P Justin Tortolani.   

Abstract

OBJECT: One of the goals of lumbar arthroplasty is to restore and maintain range of motion (ROM) and to protect adjacent levels from abnormal motion, which may be a factor in transition syndrome following arthrodesis. In this study, in vitro ROM results were compared with in vivo, 2-year postoperative radiographic ROM evaluations.
METHODS: Radiographs of patients enrolled in the CHARITE investigational device exemption study were analyzed at baseline and at 2 years postoperatively. The ROM in flexion/extension at the implanted and adjacent levels was measured, normalized, and compared with ROM results obtained using cadaver (in vitro) evaluations.
RESULTS: Preoperative ROM distributions in patients enrolled for arthroplasty or fusion at the L4-5 level was as follows: 28% motion was observed at L3-4, 35% at L4-5 and 37% at L5-S1. Following a one-level arthroplasty at L4-5, the in vivo ROM distribution from L-3 to S-1 at the 2-year time point was 36% at L3-4, 30% at L4-5 and 35% at L5-S1. Following a one-level fusion with BAK and pedicle screws at L4-5, the in vivo ROM distribution from L-3 to S-1 at the 2-year time point was 45% at L3-4, 9% at L4-5 and 46% at L5-S1.
CONCLUSIONS: The baseline as well as the 2-year in vivo data confirmed previously published in vitro data. One-level arthroplasty was shown herein to replicate the normal distribution of motion of the intact spine.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18173340     DOI: 10.3171/SPI-08/01/007

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


  7 in total

Review 1.  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

2.  The effect of different design concepts in lumbar total disc arthroplasty on the range of motion, facet joint forces and instantaneous center of rotation of a L4-5 segment.

Authors:  Hendrik Schmidt; Stefan Midderhoff; Kyle Adkins; Hans-Joachim Wilke
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  Use of a personalized hybrid biomechanical model to assess change in lumbar spine function with a TDR compared to an intact spine.

Authors:  Gregory G Knapik; Ehud Mendel; William S Marras
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-03-29       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 4.  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

Review 5.  [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

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

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

7.  ISASS Policy Statement - Lumbar Artificial Disc.

Authors:  Jack Zigler; Rolando Garcia
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2015-03-12
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.