INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this experimental study was to analyse cervical spine kinematics after 1-level and 2-level total disc replacement (TDR) and compare them with those after anterior cervical arthrodesis (ACA) and hybrid construct. Kinematics and intradiscal pressures were also investigated at adjacent levels. METHODS: Twelve human cadaveric spines were evaluated in different testing conditions: intact, 1 and 2-level TDR (Discocerv™, Scient'x/Alphatec), 1 and 2-level ACA, and hybrid construct. All tests were performed under load control protocol by applying pure moments loading of 2 N m in flexion/extension (FE), axial rotation (AR) and lateral bending (LB). RESULTS: Reduction of ROM after 1-level TDR was only significant in LB. Implantation of additional TDR resulted in significant decrease of ROM in AR at index level. A second TDR did not affect kinematics of the previously implanted TDR in FE, AR and LB. One and 2-level arthrodesis caused significant decrease of ROM in FE, AR and LB at the index levels. No significant changes in ROM were observed at adjacent levels except for 1-level arthrodesis in FE and hybrid construct in AR. When analysis was done under the displacement-control concept, we found that 1 and 2-constructs increased adjacent levels contribution to global ROMC3-C7 during FE and that IDP at superior adjacent level increased by a factor of 6.7 and 2.3 for 2-level arthrodesis and hybrid constructs, respectively. CONCLUSION: Although 1- and 2-level TDR restored only partially native kinematics of the cervical spine, these constructs generated better biomechanical conditions than arthrodesis at adjacent levels limiting contribution of these segments to global ROM and reducing the amount of their internal stresses.
INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this experimental study was to analyse cervical spine kinematics after 1-level and 2-level total disc replacement (TDR) and compare them with those after anterior cervical arthrodesis (ACA) and hybrid construct. Kinematics and intradiscal pressures were also investigated at adjacent levels. METHODS: Twelve human cadaveric spines were evaluated in different testing conditions: intact, 1 and 2-level TDR (Discocerv™, Scient'x/Alphatec), 1 and 2-level ACA, and hybrid construct. All tests were performed under load control protocol by applying pure moments loading of 2 N m in flexion/extension (FE), axial rotation (AR) and lateral bending (LB). RESULTS: Reduction of ROM after 1-level TDR was only significant in LB. Implantation of additional TDR resulted in significant decrease of ROM in AR at index level. A second TDR did not affect kinematics of the previously implanted TDR in FE, AR and LB. One and 2-level arthrodesis caused significant decrease of ROM in FE, AR and LB at the index levels. No significant changes in ROM were observed at adjacent levels except for 1-level arthrodesis in FE and hybrid construct in AR. When analysis was done under the displacement-control concept, we found that 1 and 2-constructs increased adjacent levels contribution to global ROMC3-C7 during FE and that IDP at superior adjacent level increased by a factor of 6.7 and 2.3 for 2-level arthrodesis and hybrid constructs, respectively. CONCLUSION: Although 1- and 2-level TDR restored only partially native kinematics of the cervical spine, these constructs generated better biomechanical conditions than arthrodesis at adjacent levels limiting contribution of these segments to global ROM and reducing the amount of their internal stresses.
Authors: A G Patwardhan; R M Havey; A J Ghanayem; H Diener; K P Meade; B Dunlap; S D Hodges Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2000-06-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Manohar M Panjabi; Jacek Cholewicki; Kimio Nibu; Jonathan Grauer; Lawrence B Babat; Jiri Dvorak Journal: Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) Date: 1998-01 Impact factor: 2.063
Authors: John G Heller; Rick C Sasso; Stephen M Papadopoulos; Paul A Anderson; Richard G Fessler; Robert J Hacker; Domagoj Coric; Joseph C Cauthen; Daniel K Riew Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2009-01-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Daniel Murrey; Michael Janssen; Rick Delamarter; Jeffrey Goldstein; Jack Zigler; Bobby Tay; Bruce Darden Journal: Spine J Date: 2008-09-06 Impact factor: 4.166
Authors: Emin Aghayev; Christian Bärlocher; Friedrich Sgier; Mustafa Hasdemir; Klaus F Steinsiepe; Frank Wernli; François Porchet; Oliver Hausmann; Aymen Ramadan; Gianluca Maestretti; Uwe Ebeling; Michal Neukamp; Christoph Röder Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2013-04-13 Impact factor: 3.134