Literature DB >> 20354472

Analysis of segmental cervical spine vertebral motion after prodisc-C cervical disc replacement.

Justin J Park1, Martin Quirno, Mary R Cunningham, Ran Schwarzkopf, John A Bendo, Jeffrey M Spivak, Jeffrey A Goldstein.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: Retrospective study of patients enrolled in a prospective randomized Food and Drug Administration trial with single level cervical disc replacement (CDR) with the ProDisc-C (Synthes, Paoli, PA).
OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the segmental range of motion (ROM) in the cervical spine pre- and postoperative after CDR. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Each cervical level is believed to have its own biomechanical characteristics, ultimately leading to different sagittal and lateral ROM. Our understanding of the factors that influence motion after CDR continues to change and expand.
METHODS: One hundred sixty-four patients with single level ProDisc-C arthroplasty were evaluated radiographically using Medical Metrics (QMATM, Medical Metrics, Inc., Houston, TX). Pre- and postoperative disc height and ROM were measured from standing lateral and flexion-extension radiographs. Of these 164 patients, 44 had a CDR at C6/C7, 96 at C5/C6, 18 at C4/C5, and 6 at C3/C4. The mean follow-up was of 24 months. Statistical analysis evaluated the difference in mean ROM between the groups.
RESULTS: Before surgery, C4/C5 had more sagittal ROM compared with C3/C4, C5/C6, and C6/C7 (P < 0.001.) Before surgery, C4/C5 also had more lateral ROM compared with C3/C4, C5/C6, and C6/C7 (P = 0.015). After surgery, there were no significant differences in sagittal and lateral ROM between C3/C4, C4/C5, C5/C6, and C6/C7. The delta (difference between pre- and postoperative) proved that the C4/C5 CDR actually lost sagittal ROM (-2.5 degrees ) compared with the other levels, which gained sagittal ROM, C3/C4 (0.9 degrees ), C5/C6 (1.8 degrees ), and C6/C7 (1.6 degrees ); P = 0.037. There was no significant difference in the delta lateral ROM between the segments: C3/C4, C4/C5, C5/C6, and C6/C7.
CONCLUSION: CDR approximates the different segmental sagittal and lateral ROM. Although C4/C5 had negative delta ROM in the sagittal and lateral planes, it provided a satisfactory final ROM. Long-term clinical outcome studies are needed to properly evaluate if these differences could ultimately affect the patients everyday life.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20354472     DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181c88165

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


  11 in total

Review 1.  Cervical spine alignment in disc arthroplasty: should we change our perspective?

Authors:  Alberto Di Martino; Rocco Papalia; Erika Albo; Leonardo Cortesi; Luca Denaro; Vincenzo Denaro
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-10-06       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 2.  Motion analysis of single-level cervical total disc arthroplasty: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Jian Chen; Shun-wu Fan; Xin-wei Wang; Wen Yuan
Journal:  Orthop Surg       Date:  2012-05       Impact factor: 2.071

Review 3.  WITHDRAWN: Arthroplasty versus fusion in single-level cervical degenerative disc disease.

Authors:  Toon F M Boselie; Paul C Willems; Henk van Mameren; Rob de Bie; Edward C Benzel; Henk van Santbrink
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2015-05-21

Review 4.  Factors that may affect outcome in cervical artificial disc replacement: a systematic review.

Authors:  Jian Kang; Changgui Shi; Yifei Gu; Chengwei Yang; Rui Gao
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-07-09       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 5.  Spinal facet joint biomechanics and mechanotransduction in normal, injury and degenerative conditions.

Authors:  Nicolas V Jaumard; William C Welch; Beth A Winkelstein
Journal:  J Biomech Eng       Date:  2011-07       Impact factor: 2.097

6.  Motion path of the instant center of rotation in the cervical spine during in vivo dynamic flexion-extension: implications for artificial disc design and evaluation of motion quality after arthrodesis.

Authors:  William Anderst; Emma Baillargeon; William Donaldson; Joon Lee; James Kang
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2013-05-01       Impact factor: 3.468

Review 7.  Polyurethane on titanium unconstrained disc arthroplasty versus anterior discectomy and fusion for the treatment of cervical disc disease: a review of level I-II randomized clinical trials including clinical outcomes.

Authors:  María Aragonés; Eduardo Hevia; Carlos Barrios
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-09-12       Impact factor: 3.134

8.  [Effectiveness evaluation of Prodisc-C prosthesis for more than 10 years follow-up after total cervical disc replacement].

Authors:  Shuai Xu; Yan Liang; Zhenqi Zhu; Kaifeng Wang; Haiying Liu
Journal:  Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi       Date:  2019-04-15

9.  Placing ball and socket cervical total disc replacement using instant center of rotation.

Authors:  Kingsley R Chin; Fabio J R Pencle; Amala Benny; Jason A Seale
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2019-05-01

10.  Cervical Artificial Disc Replacement Versus Fusion for Cervical Degenerative Disc Disease: A Health Technology Assessment.

Authors: 
Journal:  Ont Health Technol Assess Ser       Date:  2019-02-19
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.