OBJECTIVE: We hypothesized that L5-S1 kinematics will not be affected by the lordosis distribution between the prosthesis endplates. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twelve cadaveric lumbosacral spines (51.3 ± 9.8 years) were implanted with 6° or 11° prostheses (ProDisc-L) with four combinations of superior/inferior lordosis (6°/0°, 3°/3°, 11°/0°, 3°/8°). Specimens were tested intact and after prostheses implantation with different lordosis distributions. Center of rotation (COR) and range of motion (ROM) were quantified. RESULTS: Six-degree lordosis prostheses (n = 7) showed no difference in flexion-extension ROM, regardless of design (6°/0° or 3°/3°) (p > 0.05). In lateral bending (LB), both designs reduced ROM (p < 0.05). In axial rotation, only the 3°/3° design reduced ROM (p < 0.05). Eleven-degree lordosis prostheses (n = 5) showed no difference in flexion-extension ROM for either design (p > 0.05). LB ROM decreased with distributed lordosis prostheses (3°/8°) (p < 0.05). Overall, L5-S1 range of motion was not markedly influenced by lordosis distribution among the two prosthesis endplates. The ProDisc-L prosthesis design where all lordosis is concentrated in the superior endplate yielded COR locations that were anterior and caudal to intact controls. The prosthesis with lordosis distributed between the two endplates yielded a COR that tended to be closer to intact. CONCLUSIONS: Further clinical and biomechanical studies are needed to assess the long-term impact of lordosis angle distribution on the fate of the facet joints.
OBJECTIVE: We hypothesized that L5-S1 kinematics will not be affected by the lordosis distribution between the prosthesis endplates. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twelve cadaveric lumbosacral spines (51.3 ± 9.8 years) were implanted with 6° or 11° prostheses (ProDisc-L) with four combinations of superior/inferior lordosis (6°/0°, 3°/3°, 11°/0°, 3°/8°). Specimens were tested intact and after prostheses implantation with different lordosis distributions. Center of rotation (COR) and range of motion (ROM) were quantified. RESULTS: Six-degree lordosis prostheses (n = 7) showed no difference in flexion-extension ROM, regardless of design (6°/0° or 3°/3°) (p > 0.05). In lateral bending (LB), both designs reduced ROM (p < 0.05). In axial rotation, only the 3°/3° design reduced ROM (p < 0.05). Eleven-degree lordosis prostheses (n = 5) showed no difference in flexion-extension ROM for either design (p > 0.05). LB ROM decreased with distributed lordosis prostheses (3°/8°) (p < 0.05). Overall, L5-S1 range of motion was not markedly influenced by lordosis distribution among the two prosthesis endplates. The ProDisc-L prosthesis design where all lordosis is concentrated in the superior endplate yielded COR locations that were anterior and caudal to intact controls. The prosthesis with lordosis distributed between the two endplates yielded a COR that tended to be closer to intact. CONCLUSIONS: Further clinical and biomechanical studies are needed to assess the long-term impact of lordosis angle distribution on the fate of the facet joints.
Authors: Brandon Santoni; Andres F Cabezas; Daniel J Cook; Matthew S Yeager; James B Billys; Benjamin Whiting; Boyle C Cheng Journal: Int J Spine Surg Date: 2015-07-17