Literature DB >> 18178528

Effect of multilevel lumbar disc arthroplasty on the operative- and adjacent-level kinematics and intradiscal pressures: an in vitro human cadaveric assessment.

Anton E Dmitriev1, Norman W Gill, Timothy R Kuklo, Michael K Rosner.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: With lumbar arthroplasty gaining popularity, limited data are available highlighting changes in adjacent-level mechanics after multilevel procedures.
PURPOSE: Compare operative- and adjacent-segment range of motion (ROM) and intradiscal pressures (IDPs) after two-level arthroplasty versus circumferential arthrodesis. STUDY
DESIGN: Cadaveric biomechanical study.
METHODS: Ten human cadaveric lumbar spines were used in this investigation. Biomechanical testing was performed according to a hybrid testing protocol using an unconstrained spine simulator under axial rotation (AR), flexion extension (FE), and lateral-bending (LB) loading. Specimens were tested in the following order: 1) Intact, 2) L3-L5 total disc replacement (TDR), 3) L3-L5 anterior interbody cages+pedicle screws. IDP was recorded at proximal and distal adjacent levels and normalized to controls (%intact). Full ROM was monitored at the operative and adjacent levels and reported in degrees.
RESULTS: Kinematics assessment revealed L3-L5 ROM reduction after both reconstructions versus intact controls (p < .05). However, global quality of segmental motion distributed over L2-S1 was preserved in the arthroplasty group but was significantly altered after circumferential fixation. Furthermore, adjacent-level ROM was increased for the arthrodesis group under LB at both segments and during AR at L2-L3 relative to controls (p < .05). FE did not reveal any intergroup statistical differences. Nonetheless, after arthrodesis IDPs were increased proximally under all three loading modalities, whereas distally a significant IDP rise was noted during AR and LB (p < .05). No statistical differences in either biomechanical parameter were recorded at the adjacent levels between intact control and TDR groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate no significant adjacent-level biomechanical changes between arthroplasty and control groups. In contrast, significant alterations in ROM and IDP were recorded both proximally (ROM=LB & AR; IDP=AR, FE, LB) and distally (ROM=LB; IDP=AR & LB) after circumferential arthrodesis. Therefore, two-level lumbar arthroplasty maintains a more favorable biomechanical environment at the adjacent segments compared with the conventional transpedicular fixation technique. This, in turn, may have a positive effect on the rate of the transition syndrome postoperatively.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18178528     DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2007.10.034

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine J        ISSN: 1529-9430            Impact factor:   4.166


  15 in total

1.  Advanced Multi-Axis Spine Testing: Clinical Relevance and Research Recommendations.

Authors:  Timothy P Holsgrove; Nikhil R Nayak; William C Welch; Beth A Winkelstein
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2015-07-17

2.  Clinical outcomes after treatment with disc prostheses in three lumbar segments compared to one- or two segments.

Authors:  Svante Berg; Nina Gillberg-Aronsson
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2015-09-30

3.  Kinematic evaluation of one- and two-level Maverick lumbar total disc replacement caudal to a long thoracolumbar spinal fusion.

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

Review 4.  Limitations of current in vitro test protocols for investigation of instrumented adjacent segment biomechanics: critical analysis of the literature.

Authors:  David Volkheimer; Masoud Malakoutian; Thomas R Oxland; Hans-Joachim Wilke
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-06-03       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  Effect of multilevel lumbar disc arthroplasty on spine kinematics and facet joint loads in flexion and extension: a finite element analysis.

Authors:  Hendrik Schmidt; Fabio Galbusera; Antonius Rohlmann; Thomas Zander; Hans-Joachim Wilke
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2010-04-02       Impact factor: 3.134

6.  Single and Multilevel Lumbar Total Disc Replacement Adjacent to L5-S1 ALIF (Lumbar Hybrid): 6 Years of Follow-up.

Authors:  Jason M Cuellar; Alexandre Rasouli; Todd H Lanman; Lea Kanim; Rick Delamarter
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2021-10-08

7.  Total disc replacement compared to lumbar fusion: a randomised controlled trial with 2-year follow-up.

Authors:  Svante Berg; Tycho Tullberg; Björn Branth; Claes Olerud; Hans Tropp
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-06-09       Impact factor: 3.134

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

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

9.  The current testing protocols for biomechanical evaluation of lumbar spinal implants in laboratory setting: a review of the literature.

Authors:  Sabrina A Gonzalez-Blohm; James J Doulgeris; William E Lee; Thomas M Shea; Kamran Aghayev; Frank D Vrionis
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2015-02-15       Impact factor: 3.411

Review 10.  Total Disc Replacement in Lumbar Degenerative Disc Diseases.

Authors:  Chun Kun Park
Journal:  J Korean Neurosurg Soc       Date:  2015-11-30
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.