Literature DB >> 20568921

Effect of arthroplasty design on cervical spine kinematics: analysis of the Bryan Disc, ProDisc-C, and Synergy disc.

Bruno C R Lazaro1, Kemal Yucesoy, Kasim Z Yuksel, Izabela Kowalczyk, Doron Rabin, Marie Fink, Neil Duggal.   

Abstract

OBJECT: Cervical total disc replacement has emerged as a surgical option to preserve motion and potentially avoid adjacent-segment disease after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Recently, much attention has been directed at the ability of a given device to maintain and/or restore normal segmental alignment. Nonphysiological disc and segmental angulation could result in increased stresses transmitted to the facet joints and posterior elements, conflicting with the essence of arthroplasty and potentially leading to adjacent-segment disease. The goal of this study was to contrast device alignment and segmental kinematics provided by 3 different cervical disc prostheses.
METHODS: Sixty patients were retrospectively analyzed and divided into 3 groups receiving the Bryan, ProDisc-C, or Synergy disc. Only single-level arthroplasty cases were included in the study. Lateral dynamic radiographs of the cervical spine were analyzed using quantitative motion analysis software (Medical Metrics, Inc.) to analyze the kinematics at the index level both preoperatively and postoperatively. Several parameters were noted, including range of motion, disc angles, shell angles, anterior and posterior disc heights, translation, and center of rotation. Preoperative and postoperative data were compared using the Student t-test with a significance level of p < 0.05.
RESULTS: Postoperatively, all 3 disc groups maintained adequate range of motion at the implanted level. With respect to the shell angles, the Synergy disc demonstrated the least variability, maintaining 6 degrees lordotic configuration between the device endplates. In the Bryan disc group, significant shell kyphosis developed postoperatively (p < 0.0001). Both ProDisc-C and Synergy discs significantly increased anterior and posterior disc heights (p < 0.0001). The Bryan and Synergy discs maintained the natural center of rotation, whereas significant anterior shift occurred with ProDisc-C.
CONCLUSIONS: The goal for motion preservation at the implanted level was achieved using all 3 devices. The Synergy disc was unique in its ability to alter device angulation by 6 degrees. The Bryan disc demonstrated device endplate kyphosis. Both the Synergy disc and ProDisc-C increased disc space height.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20568921     DOI: 10.3171/2010.3.FOCUS1058

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neurosurg Focus        ISSN: 1092-0684            Impact factor:   4.047


  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.  Does design matter? Cervical disc replacements under review.

Authors:  Michael D Staudt; Kaushik Das; Neil Duggal
Journal:  Neurosurg Rev       Date:  2016-07-27       Impact factor: 3.042

Review 4.  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

5.  Clinical and radiological outcome 1-year after cervical total disc replacement using the Signus ROTAIO - Prosthesis.

Authors:  Anna Lang; Sara Lener; Lukas Grassner; Anto Abramovic; Claudius Thomé; Dennis Päsler; Jens Lehmberg; Ralph Schär; Sebastian Hartmann
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2022-10-11       Impact factor: 2.721

Review 6.  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

7.  Kinematic analysis following implantation of the PRESTIGE LP.

Authors:  Izabela Kowalczyk; Navjot Chaudhary; Neil Duggal
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2013-12-01

8.  Activ C cervical disc replacement for myelopathy.

Authors:  L McGonagle; S Cadman; S D Chitgopkar; L Canavan; M O'Malley; I M Shackleford
Journal:  J Craniovertebr Junction Spine       Date:  2011-07

9.  Anterior Longitudinal Ligament Reconstruction to Reduce Hypermobility of Cervical and Lumbar Disc Arthroplasty.

Authors:  Ralph J Mobbs; Jia Xi Julian Li; Kevin Phan
Journal:  Asian Spine J       Date:  2017-12-07

10.  Biomechanical Analysis of Cervical Artificial Disc Replacement Using Cervical Subtotal Discectomy Prosthesis.

Authors:  Jin Wo; Zhenjing Lv; Jing Wang; Kui Shen; Haoran Zhu; Yang Liu; Yuen Huang; Guodong Sun; Zhizhong Li
Journal:  Front Bioeng Biotechnol       Date:  2021-07-14
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.