Literature DB >> 20865285

Primary and coupled motions after cervical total disc replacement using a compressible six-degree-of-freedom prosthesis.

A G Patwardhan1, M N Tzermiadianos, P P Tsitsopoulos, L I Voronov, S M Renner, M L Reo, G Carandang, K Ritter-Lang, R M Havey.   

Abstract

This study tested the hypotheses that (1) cervical total disc replacement with a compressible, six-degree-of-freedom prosthesis would allow restoration of physiologic range and quality of motion, and (2) the kinematic response would not be adversely affected by variability in prosthesis position in the sagittal plane. Twelve human cadaveric cervical spines were tested. Prostheses were implanted at C5-C6. Range of motion (ROM) was measured in flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation under ± 1.5 Nm moments. Motion coupling between axial rotation and lateral bending was calculated. Stiffness in the high flexibility zone was evaluated in all three testing modes, while the center of rotation (COR) was calculated using digital video fluoroscopic images in flexion-extension. Implantation in the middle position increased ROM in flexion-extension from 13.5 ± 2.3 to 15.7 ± 3.0° (p < 0.05), decreased axial rotation from 9.9 ± 1.7 to 8.3 ± 1.6° (p < 0.05), and decreased lateral bending from 8.0 ± 2.1 to 4.5 ± 1.1° (p < 0.05). Coupled lateral bending decreased from 0.62 ± 0.16 to 0.39 ± 0.15° for each degree of axial rotation (p < 0.05). Flexion-extension stiffness of the reconstructed segment with the prosthesis in the middle position did not deviate significantly from intact controls, whereas the lateral bending and axial rotation stiffness values were significantly larger than intact. Implanting the prosthesis in the posterior position as compared to the middle position did not significantly affect the ROM, motion coupling, or stiffness of the reconstructed segment; however, the COR location better approximated intact controls with the prosthesis midline located within ± 1 mm of the disc-space midline. Overall, the kinematic response after reconstruction with the compressible, six-degree-of-freedom prosthesis within ± 1 mm of the disc-space midline approximated the intact response in flexion-extension. Clinical studies are needed to understand and interpret the effects of limited restoration of lateral bending and axial rotation motions and motion coupling on clinical outcome.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20865285      PMCID: PMC3377800          DOI: 10.1007/s00586-010-1575-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Spine J        ISSN: 0940-6719            Impact factor:   3.134


  51 in total

1.  Load-displacement properties of the normal and injured lower cervical spine in vitro.

Authors:  M Richter; H J Wilke; P Kluger; L Claes; W Puhl
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2000-04       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 2.  Cervical arthroplasty.

Authors:  Vincent C Traynelis
Journal:  Clin Neurosurg       Date:  2006

3.  Disc replacement adjacent to cervical fusion: a biomechanical comparison of hybrid construct versus two-level fusion.

Authors:  Michael J Lee; Mark Dumonski; Frank M Phillips; Leonard I Voronov; Susan M Renner; Gerard Carandang; Robert M Havey; Avinash G Patwardhan
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2011-11-01       Impact factor: 3.468

4.  Range of motion change after cervical arthroplasty with ProDisc-C and prestige artificial discs compared with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion.

Authors:  Ung-Kyu Chang; Daniel H Kim; Max C Lee; Rafer Willenberg; Se-Hoon Kim; Jesse Lim
Journal:  J Neurosurg Spine       Date:  2007-07

5.  Level-dependent coronal and axial moment-rotation corridors of degeneration-free cervical spines in lateral flexion.

Authors:  Narayan Yoganandan; Frank A Pintar; Brian D Stemper; Christopher E Wolfla; Barry S Shender; Glenn Paskoff
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2007-05       Impact factor: 5.284

Review 6.  Load-displacement properties of lower cervical spine motion segments.

Authors:  S P Moroney; A B Schultz; J A Miller; G B Andersson
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  1988       Impact factor: 2.712

7.  Analysis and measurement of neck loads.

Authors:  S P Moroney; A B Schultz; J A Miller
Journal:  J Orthop Res       Date:  1988       Impact factor: 3.494

Review 8.  Historical review of cervical arthroplasty.

Authors:  Hoang Le; Issada Thongtrangan; Daniel H Kim
Journal:  Neurosurg Focus       Date:  2004-09-15       Impact factor: 4.047

9.  Active range of motion of the head and cervical spine: a three-dimensional investigation in healthy young adults.

Authors:  Virgilio F Ferrario; Chiarella Sforza; Graziano Serrao; GianPiero Grassi; Erio Mossi
Journal:  J Orthop Res       Date:  2002-01       Impact factor: 3.494

10.  Update on cervical disc arthroplasty: where are we and where are we going?

Authors:  Jorge J Jaramillo-de la Torre; Jonathan N Grauer; James J Yue
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2008-06
View more
  12 in total

1.  In vitro investigation of a new dynamic cervical implant: comparison to spinal fusion and total disc replacement.

Authors:  Bastian Welke; Michael Schwarze; Christof Hurschler; Thorsten Book; Stephan Magdu; Dorothea Daentzer
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-12-18       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Core herniation after implantation of a cervical artificial disc: case report.

Authors:  Christopher Brenke; Kirsten Schmieder; Martin Barth
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2014-11-18       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  Midterm osteolysis-induced aseptic failure of the M6-C™ cervical total disc replacement secondary to polyethylene wear debris.

Authors:  Matthew Scott-Young; Evelyne Rathbone; Lauren Grierson
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2022-01-12       Impact factor: 2.721

4.  In vivo analysis of cervical kinematics after implantation of a minimally constrained cervical artificial disc replacement.

Authors:  Heiko Koller; Oliver Meier; Juliane Zenner; Michael Mayer; Wolfgang Hitzl
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2012-11-24       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  Cervical total disc replacement using a novel compressible prosthesis: Results from a prospective Food and Drug Administration-regulated feasibility study with 24-month follow-up.

Authors:  Carl Lauryssen; Domagoj Coric; Thomas Dimmig; David Musante; Donna D Ohnmeiss; Harrison A Stubbs
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2012-12-01

6.  Clinical and radiological outcomes following hybrid surgery in the treatment of multi-level cervical spondylosis: over a 2-year follow-up.

Authors:  Ji-Sheng Shi; Bin Lin; Chao Xue; Hai-Shen Zhang; Zhi-Da Chen; Zhong-Sheng Zhao
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2015-12-16       Impact factor: 2.359

7.  Kinematic assessment of an elastic-core cervical disc prosthesis in one and two-level constructs.

Authors:  Richard D Guyer; Leonard I Voronov; Robert M Havey; Saeed Khayatzadeh; Gerard Carandang; Kenneth R Blank; Stephanie Werner; Josh Rubin; Nick Padovani; Avinash G Patwardhan
Journal:  JOR Spine       Date:  2018-12-17

8.  A Retrospective Review of Radiographic and Clinical Findings from the M6 Cervical Prosthesis.

Authors:  İsmail Oltulu; Özgür Korkmaz; Ender Sarıoğlu; Mehmet Aydoğan
Journal:  Asian Spine J       Date:  2019-08-20

9.  Radiological Changes in Adjacent and Index Levels after Cervical Disc Arthroplasty.

Authors:  Jun Jae Shin; Kwang-Ryeol Kim; Dong Wuk Son; Dong Ah Shin; Seong Yi; Keung-Nyun Kim; Do-Heum Yoon; Yoon Ha
Journal:  Yonsei Med J       Date:  2022-01       Impact factor: 2.759

10.  Comparison of M6-C and Mobi-C cervical total disc replacement for cervical degenerative disc disease in adults.

Authors:  Nicholas Hui; Kevin Phan; Jack Kerferd; Meiyi Lee; Ralph J Mobbs
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2019-12
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.