Literature DB >> 21905776

Analysis of in vivo kinematics of 3 different cervical devices: Bryan disc, ProDisc-C, and Prestige LP disc.

Izabela Kowalczyk1, Bruno C R Lazaro, Marie Fink, Doron Rabin, Neil Duggal.   

Abstract

OBJECT: Cervical arthroplasty has emerged as a means of preventing adjacent segment disease by preserving motion, restoring sagittal balance, and mimicking natural spinal kinematics. The purpose of this retrospective in vivo study was to characterize the impact of arthroplasty on sagittal balance and segmental kinematics of the cervical spine.
METHODS: Sixty patients receiving the Bryan disc, ProDisc-C, or Prestige LP disc were retrospectively analyzed. Only single-level arthroplasty cases were included in this study. Lateral dynamic radiographs of the cervical spine were evaluated using quantitative measurement analysis software to determine the kinematics at the index level both preoperatively and 1 year postoperatively. Collected parameters included range of motion (ROM), disc angles, shell angles, anterior and posterior disc heights (ADHs/PDHs), translation, and center of rotation (COR). Preoperative and postoperative data were compared using the Student t-test, with p < 0.05 indicating significance.
RESULTS: The Bryan and Prestige LP discs preserved motion, whereas the ProDisc-C increased segmental ROM from extension to flexion. Following surgery, the Bryan disc exhibited significant shell angle kyphosis, while ProDisc-C and Prestige LP retained lordosis. Both ADHs and PDHs decreased following insertion of the Bryan disc. In contrast, the ProDisc-C increased the ADHs and PDHs by 80% and 52%, respectively, and the Prestige LP disc increased the ADHs and PDHs by 20%. Only the ProDisc-C demonstrated significant translation of 0.7 mm. The ProDisc-C shifted the COR x by 0.9 mm anteriorly, while the Prestige LP disc demonstrated a significant superior shift of 2.2 mm in COR y.
CONCLUSIONS: All discs adequately maintained ROM at the surgical level. The greatest difference among the 3 devices was in the disc height and index angle measurements.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21905776     DOI: 10.3171/2011.8.SPINE11273

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Neurosurg Spine        ISSN: 1547-5646


  13 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

2.  Biomechanical effects of cervical arthroplasty with U-shaped disc implant on segmental range of motion and loading of surrounding soft tissue.

Authors:  Zhong Jun Mo; Yan Bin Zhao; Li Zhen Wang; Yu Sun; Ming Zhang; Yu Bo Fan
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-10-24       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  Heterotopic ossification is related to change in disc space angle after Prestige-LP cervical disc arthroplasty.

Authors:  Lingyun Hu; Jianying Zhang; Hao Liu; Yang Meng; Yi Yang; Guangzhou Li; Chen Ding; Beiyu Wang
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2019-07-05       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  Hybrid Solutions for the Surgical Treatment of Multilevel Degenerative Cervical Disk Disease.

Authors:  Stefan Alexander König; Sebastian Ranguis; Uwe Spetzger
Journal:  Surg J (N Y)       Date:  2015-11-19

Review 5.  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

Review 6.  Anterior cervical spine surgery-associated complications in a retrospective case-control study.

Authors:  Anastasia Tasiou; Theofanis Giannis; Alexandros G Brotis; Ioannis Siasios; Iordanis Georgiadis; Haralampos Gatos; Eleni Tsianaka; Konstantinos Vagkopoulos; Konstantinos Paterakis; Kostas N Fountas
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2017-09

7.  Footprint mismatch of cervical disc prostheses with Chinese cervical anatomic dimensions.

Authors:  Liang Dong; Ming-Sheng Tan; Qin-Hua Yan; Ping Yi; Feng Yang; Xiang-Sheng Tang; Qing-Ying Hao
Journal:  Chin Med J (Engl)       Date:  2015-01-20       Impact factor: 2.628

8.  In cervical arthroplasty, only prosthesis with flexible biomechanical properties should be used for achieving a near-physiological motion pattern.

Authors:  Manfred Muhlbauer; Ernst Tomasch; Wolfgang Sinz; Siegfried Trattnig; Hermann Steffan
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2020-09-09       Impact factor: 2.359

9.  Cervical instability following artificial disc replacement.

Authors:  Ki Joon Kim; Mun Soo Gang; Jung-Sik Bae; Jee Soo Jang; Il-Tae Jang
Journal:  Surg Neurol Int       Date:  2019-09-20

10.  The Changes in Cervical Biomechanics After CTDR and Its Association With Heterotopic Ossification: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Nicholas Hui; Kevin Phan; Mei-Yi Lee; Jack Kerferd; Telvinderjit Singh; Ralph J Mobbs
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2020-06-03
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.