OBJECTIVES: This was an analytic retrospective observational study. The aims were (1) to validate patient-specific templating process by comparing postoperative range of motion (ROM) with that predicted by the model, (2) to retrospectively determine the ideal implant size, height, configuration, and location to evaluate if the ROM achieved could have been improved, and (3) to correlate postoperative ROM and clinical outcome. BACKGROUND: Previous research revealed that after total disc replacement surgery, 34% of patients with less than 5° of postoperative ROM developed adjacent segment disease. The match between patient anatomy (size, facet orientation, disc height) and implant parameters are likely to affect postoperative ROM and clinical outcomes. METHODS: Seventeen consecutive patients were implanted with 22 ProDisc-L devices between 2008 and 2015. Three-dimensional finite element (FE) models of the implanted segment were constructed from preoperative computed tomography scans and virtually implanted with the ProDisc-L implant. ROM was determined with the endpoints of facet impingement in flexion and implant contact in extension. FE templating was used to determine the optimal implant size and location. ROM was then measured directly from flexion and extension radiographs and compared to predicted ROM. Pre and postoperative Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) data were used to correlate ROM with clinical outcomes. RESULTS: No significant difference was found between the actual and predicted ROM. The computational templating procedure identified an optimal ROM that was significantly greater than actual ROM. The ROM in our cohort could have been improved by an average of 1.2° or 12% had a different implant size or position been used. CONCLUSIONS: FE analyses accurately predicted ROM in this cohort and can facilitate selection of the optimal implant size and location that we believe will increase the chance of achieving clinical success with the application of this technology.
OBJECTIVES: This was an analytic retrospective observational study. The aims were (1) to validate patient-specific templating process by comparing postoperative range of motion (ROM) with that predicted by the model, (2) to retrospectively determine the ideal implant size, height, configuration, and location to evaluate if the ROM achieved could have been improved, and (3) to correlate postoperative ROM and clinical outcome. BACKGROUND: Previous research revealed that after total disc replacement surgery, 34% of patients with less than 5° of postoperative ROM developed adjacent segment disease. The match between patient anatomy (size, facet orientation, disc height) and implant parameters are likely to affect postoperative ROM and clinical outcomes. METHODS: Seventeen consecutive patients were implanted with 22 ProDisc-L devices between 2008 and 2015. Three-dimensional finite element (FE) models of the implanted segment were constructed from preoperative computed tomography scans and virtually implanted with the ProDisc-L implant. ROM was determined with the endpoints of facet impingement in flexion and implant contact in extension. FE templating was used to determine the optimal implant size and location. ROM was then measured directly from flexion and extension radiographs and compared to predicted ROM. Pre and postoperative Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) data were used to correlate ROM with clinical outcomes. RESULTS: No significant difference was found between the actual and predicted ROM. The computational templating procedure identified an optimal ROM that was significantly greater than actual ROM. The ROM in our cohort could have been improved by an average of 1.2° or 12% had a different implant size or position been used. CONCLUSIONS: FE analyses accurately predicted ROM in this cohort and can facilitate selection of the optimal implant size and location that we believe will increase the chance of achieving clinical success with the application of this technology.
Entities:
Keywords:
adjacent segment disease; finite element modeling; low back pain; range of motion; total disc replacement
Authors: Marc-Antoine Rousseau; David S Bradford; Tamer M Hadi; Kirk L Pedersen; Jeffery C Lotz Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2005-09-20 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Moe R Lim; Randall T Loder; Russel C Huang; Stephen Lyman; Kai Zhang; Andrew Sama; Elias C Papadopoulos; Kristin Warner; Federico P Girardi; Frank P Cammisa Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2006-05-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Richard D Guyer; Paul C McAfee; Robert J Banco; Fabian D Bitan; Andrew Cappuccino; Fred H Geisler; Stephen H Hochschuler; Richard T Holt; Louis G Jenis; Mohamed E Majd; John J Regan; Scott G Tromanhauser; Douglas C Wong; Scott L Blumenthal Journal: Spine J Date: 2008-09-19 Impact factor: 4.166
Authors: William R Sears; Ioannis G Sergides; Noojan Kazemi; Mari Smith; Gavin J White; Barbara Osburg Journal: Spine J Date: 2011-01 Impact factor: 4.166
Authors: Scott Blumenthal; Paul C McAfee; Richard D Guyer; Stephen H Hochschuler; Fred H Geisler; Richard T Holt; Rolando Garcia; John J Regan; Donna D Ohnmeiss Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2005-07-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Russel C Huang; Patrick Tropiano; Thierry Marnay; Federico P Girardi; Moe R Lim; Frank P Cammisa Journal: Spine J Date: 2006 May-Jun Impact factor: 4.166
Authors: James S Harrop; Jim A Youssef; Mitch Maltenfort; Peggy Vorwald; Pascal Jabbour; Christopher M Bono; Neil Goldfarb; Alexander R Vaccaro; Alan S Hilibrand Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2008-07-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Fred H Geisler; Richard D Guyer; Scott L Blumenthal; Paul C McAfee; Andrew Cappuccino; Fabien Bitan; John J Regan Journal: J Neurosurg Spine Date: 2008-01