Cervical disc replacement - Porous coated motion prosthesis: A comparative biomechanical analysis showing the key role of the posterior longitudinal ligament

Spine

Volumn 28, Issue 20 SUPPL., 2003, Pages

  McAfee, Paul C ^a,e   Cunningham, Bryan ^b   Dmitriev, Anton ^b   Hu, Niabin ^b   Kim, Seok Woo ^b   Cappuccino, Andy ^c   Pimenta, Luiz ^d  

^a The Spine and Scoliosis Center   (United States)

^b UNION MEMORIAL HOSPITAL   (United States)

^c Lockport Hospital   (United States)

^d Santa Rosa Hospital   (Brazil)

^e Scoliosis and Spine Center   (United States)

Author keywords

Cervical arthroplasty; Cervical disc replacement; Porous coated motion prosthesis; Posterior longitudinal ligament

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ANIMAL EXPERIMENT; ANIMAL MODEL; ANIMAL TISSUE; ARTHROPLASTY; ARTICLE; BIOMECHANICS; CADAVER; CERVICAL SPINE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DECOMPRESSION; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; INFLAMMATION; INTERVERTEBRAL DISKECTOMY; JOINT MOBILITY; NEUROLOGICAL COMPLICATION; NONHUMAN; POROUS COATED MOTION PROSTHESIS; POSTERIOR LONGITUDINAL LIGAMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTHESIS; PROSTHESIS LOOSENING; SPINE FUSION; SPINE RADIOGRAPHY; TENSILE STRENGTH; WEIGHT BEARING;

EID: 0142058284     PISSN: 03622436     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.brs.0000092219.28382.0c     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. Robbins MM, Hilibrand AS. Post-arthrodesis adjacent segment degeneration. In: Complications of Pediatric and Adult Spinal Surgery. Vaccaro A, Anderson DG, Crawford A, et al, eds. 2003.
2. Hilibrand AS, Carlson GD, Palumbo MA, et al. Radiculopathy and myelopathy at segments adjacent to the site of a previous anterior cervical arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1999;81A:519-28.
3. White AA, Panjabi MM. Kinematics of the spine. In: Clinical Biomechanics of the Spine. Philadelphia, PA: J.B. Lippincott; 1990:86-125.
4. Cunningham BW, Gordon JD, Dmietriev AE, et al. Biomechanical evaluation of total disc arthroplasty: an in vitro human cadaveric model. Presented at: The International Meeting of Advanced Spinal Technologies (IMAST); May 2002; Montreaux, Switzerland.
5. Buechel FF, Pappas MJ. Long-term survivorship analysis of cruciate-sparing versus cruciate-sacrificing knee prosthesis using meniscal bearings. Clin Orthop 1990;260:162-9.
6. Cummins BH, Robertson JT, Gill SS. Surgical experience with an implanted artificial cervical joint. J Neurosurg 1998;88:943-8.
7. Bryan VE. Cervical motion segment replacement. Eur Spine J 2002;11:S92-S97.
8. McAfee PC, Cunningham BW, Orbegoso CM, et al. Analysis of porous ingrowth in intervertebral disc prostheses. A nonhuman primate model. Spine 2003;28:332-40.
9. McAfee PC. Artificial disc prosthesis: the Link SB Charitè. In: Spinal Restabilization Procedures. Kaech DL, Jinkins JR, eds. Elsevier Science B.V.; 2002:299-310.
10. Lewis GL. Properties of crosslinked ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene. Biomaterials 2001;22:371-401.
11. McAfee PC, Cunningham BW, Devine JD, et al. Classification of heterotopic ossification (HO) in artificial disc replacement. Proceedings of the 17th Annual Meeting of the North American Spine Society in Montreal Canada. The Spine J 2002;2:94S.
12. Pointillart V. Cervical disk prosthesis in humans. Spine 2001;26:E90-E92.
13. Tanzi MC, Mantovani D, Petrini P, et al. Chemical stability of polyether urethanes versus polycarbonate urethanes. Biomaterials 1997;18:550-9.
14. Anderson PA, Rosler DM, Rouleau JP, et al. Evaluation of the inflammatory response to the Bryan™ cervical disc prosthesis in a caprine model. Eur Spine J 2002;11:S36.