European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2012
Effect of prosthesis endplate lordosis angles on L5-S1 kinematics after disc arthroplasty.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Tsitsopoulos Parmenion P, Wojewnik Bartosz, Voronov Leonard I, Havey Robert M, Renner Susan M, Zelenakova Julia, McIntosh Braden, Carandang Gerard, Abjornson Celeste, Patwardhan Avinash G
Аннотация
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.
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.