Spine · 2011
Kinematics of cervical total disc replacement adjacent to a two-level, straight versus lordotic fusion.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАПоддержка 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.
Martin Shelden, Ghanayem Alexander J, Tzermiadianos Michael N, Voronov Leonard I, Havey Robert M, Renner Susan M, Carandang Gerard, Abjornson Celeste, Patwardhan Avinash G
Аннотация
STUDY DESIGN: In vitro biomechanical study.
OBJECTIVE: To characterize cervical total disc replacement (TDR) kinematics above two-level fusion, and to determine the effect of fusion alignment on TDR response.
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Cervical TDR may be a promising alternative for a symptomatic adjacent level after prior multilevel cervical fusion. However, little is known about the TDR kinematics in this setting.
METHODS: Eight human cadaveric cervical spines (C2-T1, age: 59 ± 8.6 years) were tested intact, after simulated two-level fusion (C4-C6) in lordotic alignment and then in straight alignment, and after C3-C4 TDR above the C4-C6 fusion in lordotic and straight alignments. Fusion was simulated using an external fixator apparatus, allowing easy adjustment of C4-C6 fusion alignment, and restoration to intact state upon disassembly. Specimens were tested in flexion-extension using hybrid testing protocols.
RESULTS: The external fixator device significantly reduced range of motion (ROM) at C4-C6 to 2.0 ± 0.6°, a reduction of 89 ± 3.0% (P < 0.05). Removal of the fusion construct restored the motion response of the spinal segments to their intact state. The C3-C4 TDR resulted in less motion as compared to the intact segment when the disc prosthesis was implanted either as a stand-alone procedure or above a two-level fusion. The decrease in motion of C3-C4 TDR was significant for both lordotic and straight fusions across C4-C6 (P < 0.05). Flexion and extension moments needed to bring the cervical spine to similar C2 motion endpoints significantly increased for the TDR above a two-level fusion compared to TDR alone (P < 0.05). Lordotic fusion required significantly greater flexion moment, whereas straight fusion required significantly greater extension moment (P < 0.05).
CONCLUSION: TDR placed adjacent to a two-level fusion is subjected to a more challenging biomechanical environment as compared to a stand-alone TDR. An artificial disc used in such a clinical scenario should be able to accommodate the increased moment loads without causing impingement of its endplates or undue wear during the expected life of the prosthesis.
OBJECTIVE: To characterize cervical total disc replacement (TDR) kinematics above two-level fusion, and to determine the effect of fusion alignment on TDR response.
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Cervical TDR may be a promising alternative for a symptomatic adjacent level after prior multilevel cervical fusion. However, little is known about the TDR kinematics in this setting.
METHODS: Eight human cadaveric cervical spines (C2-T1, age: 59 ± 8.6 years) were tested intact, after simulated two-level fusion (C4-C6) in lordotic alignment and then in straight alignment, and after C3-C4 TDR above the C4-C6 fusion in lordotic and straight alignments. Fusion was simulated using an external fixator apparatus, allowing easy adjustment of C4-C6 fusion alignment, and restoration to intact state upon disassembly. Specimens were tested in flexion-extension using hybrid testing protocols.
RESULTS: The external fixator device significantly reduced range of motion (ROM) at C4-C6 to 2.0 ± 0.6°, a reduction of 89 ± 3.0% (P < 0.05). Removal of the fusion construct restored the motion response of the spinal segments to their intact state. The C3-C4 TDR resulted in less motion as compared to the intact segment when the disc prosthesis was implanted either as a stand-alone procedure or above a two-level fusion. The decrease in motion of C3-C4 TDR was significant for both lordotic and straight fusions across C4-C6 (P < 0.05). Flexion and extension moments needed to bring the cervical spine to similar C2 motion endpoints significantly increased for the TDR above a two-level fusion compared to TDR alone (P < 0.05). Lordotic fusion required significantly greater flexion moment, whereas straight fusion required significantly greater extension moment (P < 0.05).
CONCLUSION: TDR placed adjacent to a two-level fusion is subjected to a more challenging biomechanical environment as compared to a stand-alone TDR. An artificial disc used in such a clinical scenario should be able to accommodate the increased moment loads without causing impingement of its endplates or undue wear during the expected life of the prosthesis.