Literature DB >> 21245781

How does lumbar degenerative disc disease affect the disc deformation at the cephalic levels in vivo?

Shaobai Wang1, Qun Xia, Peter Passias, Weishi Li, Kirkham Wood, Guoan Li.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: Case-control study.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of lumbar degenerative disc disease (DDD) on the disc deformation at the adjacent level and at the level one above the adjacent level during end ranges of lumbar motion. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: It has been reported that in patients with DDD, the intervertebral discs adjacent to the diseased levels have a greater tendency to degenerate. Although altered biomechanics have been suggested to be the causative factors, few data have been reported on the deformation characteristics of the adjacent discs in patients with DDD.
METHODS: Ten symptomatic patients with discogenic low back pain between L4 and S1 and with healthy discs at the cephalic segments were involved. Eight healthy subjects recruited in our previous studies were used as a reference comparison. The In Vivo kinematics of L3-L4 (the cephalic adjacent level to the degenerated discs) and L2-L3 (the level one above the adjacent level) lumbar discs of both groups were obtained using a combined magnetic resonance imaging and dual fluoroscopic imaging technique at functional postures. Deformation characteristics, in terms of areas of minimal deformation (defined as less than 5%), deformations at the center of the discs, and maximum tensile and shear deformations, were compared between the two groups at the two disc levels.
RESULTS: In the patients with DDD, there were significantly smaller areas of minimal disc deformation at L3-L4 and L2-L3 than the healthy subjects (18% compared with 45% of the total disc area, on average). Both L2-L3 and L3-L4 discs underwent larger tensile and shear deformations in all postures than the healthy subjects. The maximum tensile deformations were higher by up to 23% (of the local disc height in standing) and the maximum shear deformations were higher by approximately 25% to 40% (of the local disc height in standing) compared with those of the healthy subjects.
CONCLUSION: Both the discs of the adjacent level and the level one above experienced higher tensile and shear deformations during end ranges of lumbar motion in the patients with DDD before surgical treatments when compared with the healthy subjects. The larger disc deformations at the cephalic segments were otherwise not detectable using conventional magnetic resonance imaging techniques. Future studies should investigate the effect of surgical treatments, such as fusion or disc replacement, on the biomechanics of the adjacent segments during end ranges of lumbar motion.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21245781      PMCID: PMC3740361          DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181f79e93

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


  46 in total

Review 1.  Adjacent segment disease after lumbar or lumbosacral fusion: review of the literature.

Authors:  Paul Park; Hugh J Garton; Vishal C Gala; Julian T Hoff; John E McGillicuddy
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2004-09-01       Impact factor: 3.468

Review 2.  Biomechanics of back pain.

Authors:  Michael A Adams
Journal:  Acupunct Med       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 2.267

3.  Biomechanical comparison between fusion of two vertebrae and implantation of an artificial intervertebral disc.

Authors:  Guilhem Denozière; David N Ku
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 2.712

4.  Biomechanical comparison of instrumented posterior lumbar interbody fusion with one or two cages by finite element analysis.

Authors:  Ming-Fu Chiang; Zheng-Cheng Zhong; Chen-Sheng Chen; Cheng-Kung Cheng; Shih-Liang Shih
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2006-09-01       Impact factor: 3.468

5.  Analysis of stress distribution in lumbar interbody fusion.

Authors:  Naresh Kumar; Meakin R Judith; Aravind Kumar; Viren Mishra; Mulholland C Robert
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2005-08-01       Impact factor: 3.468

6.  The effect of spinal destabilization and instrumentation on lumbar intradiscal pressure: an in vitro biomechanical analysis.

Authors:  B W Cunningham; Y Kotani; P S McNulty; A Cappuccino; P C McAfee
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1997-11-15       Impact factor: 3.468

7.  The spondylolytic vertebra and its adjacent segment. Mobility measured before and after posterolateral fusion.

Authors:  P Axelsson; R Johnsson; B Strömqvist
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1997-02-15       Impact factor: 3.468

Review 8.  Intervertebral disc arthroplasty.

Authors:  Paul A Anderson; Jeffrey P Rouleau
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2004-12-01       Impact factor: 3.468

Review 9.  Mechanical conditions that accelerate intervertebral disc degeneration: overload versus immobilization.

Authors:  Ian A F Stokes; James C Iatridis
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2004-12-01       Impact factor: 3.468

10.  The transition zone above a lumbosacral fusion.

Authors:  M F Hambly; L L Wiltse; N Raghavan; G Schneiderman; C Koenig
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1998-08-15       Impact factor: 3.468

View more
  9 in total

1.  Design Requirements for Annulus Fibrosus Repair: Review of Forces, Displacements, and Material Properties of the Intervertebral Disk and a Summary of Candidate Hydrogels for Repair.

Authors:  Rose G Long; Olivia M Torre; Warren W Hom; Dylan J Assael; James C Iatridis
Journal:  J Biomech Eng       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 2.097

2.  Ranges of Cervical Intervertebral Disc Deformation During an In Vivo Dynamic Flexion-Extension of the Neck.

Authors:  Yan Yu; Haiqing Mao; Jing-Sheng Li; Tsung-Yuan Tsai; Liming Cheng; Kirkham B Wood; Guoan Li; Thomas D Cha
Journal:  J Biomech Eng       Date:  2017-06-01       Impact factor: 2.097

3.  Measurement of range of motions of L3-L4 healthy spine through offsetting reflective markers and in silico analysis of meshed model.

Authors:  G Kosalishkwaran; S Parasuraman; D Kingsly Jeba Singh; Elango Natarajan; I Elamvazuthi; John George
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2019-08-23       Impact factor: 2.602

4.  A combined numerical and experimental technique for estimation of the forces and moments in the lumbar intervertebral disc.

Authors:  Shaobai Wang; Won Man Park; Hemanth R Gadikota; Jun Miao; Yoon Hyuk Kim; Kirkham B Wood; Guoan Li
Journal:  Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin       Date:  2012-05-03       Impact factor: 1.763

5.  Biomechanics of disc degeneration.

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

6.  De novo spine surgery as a predictor of additional spine surgery at the same or distant spine regions.

Authors:  M Sami Walid; Joe Sam Robinson; Moataz Abbara; Abdullah Tolaymat; Joe Sam Robinson
Journal:  Ger Med Sci       Date:  2011-04-21

7.  Recurrent spine surgery patients in hospital administrative database.

Authors:  M Sami Walid; Nadezhda Zaytseva; Lyudmila Porubaiko; Moataz Abbara
Journal:  Ger Med Sci       Date:  2012-02-01

8.  Validation and application of a novel in vivo cervical spine kinematics analysis technique.

Authors:  Zongmiao Wan; Wenjin Wang; Chao Li; Junjie Li; Jinpeng Lin; Fei Tian; Ting Zhu; Danni Wu; Luqi Guo; Shaobai Wang
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-12-20       Impact factor: 4.379

9.  In Vivo Characteristics of Nondegenerated Adjacent Segment Intervertebral Foramina in Patients With Degenerative Disc Disease During Flexion-Extension.

Authors:  Thomas D Cha; Gregory Moore; Ming Han Lincoln Liow; Weiye Zhong; Minfei Wu; Shaobai Wang; James D Kang; Kirkham B Wood; Guoan Li
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2017-03-15       Impact factor: 3.241

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.