Literature DB >> 18317194

Effect of intervertebral disc height on postoperative motion and outcomes after ProDisc-L lumbar disc replacement.

Burt Yaszay1, John A Bendo, Jeffrey A Goldstein, Martin Quirno, Jeffrey M Spivak, Thomas J Errico.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: Retrospective study of patients enrolled in prospective randomized Food and Drug Administration trial.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the influence of pre- and postoperative disc height on postoperative motion and clinical outcomes. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Our understanding of the factors that influence motion and ultimately patient satisfaction after lumbar disc replacement continues to evolve.
METHODS: Forty-two patients with a single level ProDisc-L at either the L4/5 or L5-S1 were selected. Pre- and postoperative disc height and range of motion (ROM) were measured from standing lateral and flexion-extension radiographs. Oswestry Disability Index and visual analog scale were also collected. Student t test and Spearman rho tests were performed to determine if there was any correlation or "threshold" effect between the disc height and ROM or clinical outcome.
RESULTS: The mean anterior and posterior disc height significantly increased from 10.8 mm to 17.6 mm and 4.4 mm to 7.9 mm, respectively (P < 0.01). The mean ROM decreased from 7.0 degrees to 5.7 degrees (P = 0.21). Patients with less than 9 mm of preoperative anterior disc height had an increase in their ROM (2.2 degrees) compared with a loss of ROM (-2.2 degrees) in patients with more than 9 mm of preoperative disc height (P = 0.02). Patients with between 16 mm and 18 mm of postoperative anterior disc height have greater ROM (7.5 degrees) than those above or below this range (3.6 degrees and 3.6 degrees respectively, P < 0.05). There was no correlation or threshold effect between clinical outcomes and disc height.
CONCLUSION: Patients with greater disc collapse benefit more in ROM from a total disc replacement. The optimal range to maximize ROM for postoperative anterior disc height is 16 mm to 18 mm. This optimal range did not translate into better clinical outcome at 2 years follow-up.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18317194     DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e318165b998

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)        ISSN: 0362-2436            Impact factor:   3.468


  6 in total

1.  The impact of implantation technique on frontal and sagittal alignment in total lumbar disc replacement: a comparison of anterior versus oblique implantation.

Authors:  René Schmidt; U Obertacke; J Nothwang; C Ulrich; J Nowicki; H Reichel; B Cakir
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2010-05-21       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Influence of lumbar intervertebral disc degeneration on the outcome of total lumbar disc replacement: a prospective clinical, histological, X-ray and MRI investigation.

Authors:  Christoph J Siepe; Franziska Heider; Elisabeth Haas; Wolfgang Hitzl; Ulrike Szeimies; Axel Stäbler; Christoph Weiler; Andreas G Nerlich; Michael H Mayer
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2012-05-29       Impact factor: 3.134

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

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

4.  Biomechanics of disc degeneration.

Authors:  V Palepu; M Kodigudla; V K Goel
Journal:  Adv Orthop       Date:  2012-06-17

5.  Clinical efficacy and radiographic K-rod stabilization for the treatment of multilevel degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  Chaohua Fu; Tianjun Chen; Yuhao Yang; Hua Yang; Maohui Diao; Guowei Zhang; Zhisheng Ji; Hongsheng Lin
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2020-07-06       Impact factor: 2.362

6.  Retrospective study on effectiveness of Activ L total disc replacement.

Authors:  Wenzhi Sun; Peng Wang; Hailiang Hu; Chao Kong; Yong Hai; Shibao Lu
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2021-01-04       Impact factor: 2.359

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.