Literature DB >> 7604320

Intradiscal pressure measurements above an instrumented fusion. A cadaveric study.

S L Weinhoffer1, R D Guyer, M Herbert, S L Griffith.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: An in vitro study to determine the intradiscal pressure changes during flexion in levels above a simulated fusion was performed.
OBJECTIVES: To determine if intradiscal pressure increases more during flexion in discs above an instrumented spinal segment compared to an uninstrumented segment. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The progressive degeneration of intervertebral discs adjacent to a fused or fixed segment is a phenomenon that is noted but poorly understood. Intuitively, the degeneration appears to be a function of altered biomechanics of the motion segments in the spine.
METHODS: Two intervertebral disc levels were evaluated, L3-L4 and L4-L5 from each of six fresh frozen cadaver spines. Pressure measurements were taken with the spine uninstrumented, with bilateral pedicle screw-rod instrumentation from L5 to S1, and with bilateral pedicle screw-rod instrumentation from L4 to S1. Pressure measurements were accomplished with Millar Mikro-Tip pressure transducers. The transducers were placed within the nucleus pulposus of L3-L4 and L4-L5 intervertebral discs. Pressure data were recorded by computer data acquisition. The pressure data were compared by intervertebral level and by the effects of added instrumentation.
RESULTS: In general, the addition of instrumentation significantly affected the intradiscal pressure in the levels above a simulated fusion. The intradiscal pressure increased as the amount of levels involved in the simulated fusion increased. The intradiscal pressure increased as flexion motion increased. A greater increase was seen at the L4-L5 level than the L3-L4 level. When L5-S1 fixation was added, the intradiscal pressure increased. When L4-S1 fixation was added, the intradiscal pressure further increased.
CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated increasing intradiscal pressures during flexion.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1995        PMID: 7604320     DOI: 10.1097/00007632-199503010-00004

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


  69 in total

Review 1.  Cervical and lumbar spinal arthroplasty: clinical review.

Authors:  T D Uschold; D Fusco; R Germain; L M Tumialan; S W Chang
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2011-10-27       Impact factor: 3.825

2.  Posterior mono-segmental fixation, combined with anterior debridement and strut graft, for treatment of the mono-segmental lumbar spine tuberculosis.

Authors:  Zili Wang; Haifeng Yuan; Guangqi Geng; Jiandang Shi; Weidong Jin
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2012-01-14       Impact factor: 3.075

3.  A history of spine biomechanics. Focus on 20th century progress.

Authors:  T R Oxland
Journal:  Unfallchirurg       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 1.000

4.  Kinematic evaluation of one- and two-level Maverick lumbar total disc replacement caudal to a long thoracolumbar spinal fusion.

Authors:  Qingan Zhu; Eyal Itshayek; Claire F Jones; Timothy Schwab; Chadwick R Larson; Lawrence G Lenke; Peter A Cripton
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2012-04-25       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  Long-term randomised comparison between a carbon fibre cage and the Cloward procedure in the cervical spine.

Authors:  Anneli Peolsson; Ludek Vavruch; Rune Hedlund
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2006-02-07       Impact factor: 3.134

6.  Effects of a cervical disc prosthesis on maintaining sagittal alignment of the functional spinal unit and overall sagittal balance of the cervical spine.

Authors:  Seok Woo Kim; Jae Hyuk Shin; Jose Joefrey Arbatin; Moon Soo Park; Yung Khee Chung; Paul C McAfee
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2007-08-25       Impact factor: 3.134

7.  A prospective randomised study on the long-term effect of lumbar fusion on adjacent disc degeneration.

Authors:  Per Ekman; Hans Möller; Adel Shalabi; Yiang Xiao Yu; Rune Hedlund
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-04-01       Impact factor: 3.134

8.  Cervical adjacent segment pathology following fusion: Is it due to fusion?

Authors:  Philip Rosenthal; Kee D Kim
Journal:  World J Orthop       Date:  2013-07-18

Review 9.  [Adjacent segment movement after monosegmental total disc replacement and monosegmental fusion of segments L4/5].

Authors:  M Däxle; T Kocak; F Lattig; H Reichel; B Cakir
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 1.087

10.  What are the associative factors of adjacent segment degeneration after anterior cervical spine surgery? Comparative study between anterior cervical fusion and arthroplasty with 5-year follow-up MRI and CT.

Authors:  Jeong Yoon Park; Kyung Hyun Kim; Sung Uk Kuh; Dong Kyu Chin; Keun Su Kim; Yong Eun Cho
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2012-12-15       Impact factor: 3.134

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.