Evaluation of spinal kinematics following lumbar total disc replacement and circumferential fusion using in vivo fluoroscopy

Spine

Volumn 32, Issue 5, 2007, Pages 527-536

  Auerbach, Joshua D ^a   Wills, Brian P D ^b   McIntosh, Theresa C ^c   Balderston, Richard A ^c,d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

^c PA Hospital   (United States)

^d PENNSYLVANIA HOSPITAL   (United States)

Author keywords

Adjacent segment; Fluoroscopy; Fusion; Lumbar disc replacement; Motion profile

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; FEMALE; FLUOROSCOPY; HUMAN; KINEMATICS; LUMBAR SPINE; LUMBAR TOTAL DISC REPLACEMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANGE OF MOTION; SPINE FUSION; SPINE MOBILITY; SPINE SURGERY;

ADULT; ARTHROPLASTY, REPLACEMENT; BIOMECHANICS; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; FEMALE; FLUOROSCOPY; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; INTERVERTEBRAL DISK; LUMBAR VERTEBRAE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVER VARIATION; RANGE OF MOTION, ARTICULAR; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; ROTATION; SPINAL FUSION; TIME FACTORS; TREATMENT OUTCOME; VIDEO RECORDING;

EID: 33947148166     PISSN: 03622436     EISSN: 15281159     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.brs.0000256915.90236.17     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Jackson RK, Boston DA, Edge AJ. Lateral mass fusion. A prospective study of a consecutive series with long-term follow-up. Spine 1985;10:828-32.
2. Kiviluoto O, Santavirta S, Salenius P, et al. Postero-lateral spine fusion. A 1-4-year follow-up of 80 consecutive patients. Acta Orthop Scand 1985;56:152-4.
3. O'Beirne J, O'Neill D, Gallagher J, et al. Spinal fusion for back pain: A clinical and radiological review. J Spinal Disord 1992;5:32-8.
4. Boden SD, Balderston RA, Heller JG, et al. An AOA critical issue. Disc replacements: This time will we really cure low-back and neck pain? J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004;86-A:411-22.
5. Cunningham BW, Gordon JD, Dmitriev AE, et al. Biomechanical evaluation of total disc replacement arthroplasty: An in vitro human cadaveric model. Spine 2003;28:S110-7.
6. Dooris AP, Goel VK, Grosland NM, et al. Load-sharing between anterior and posterior elements in a lumbar motion segment implanted with an artificial disc. Spine 2001;26:E122-9.
7. Puttlitz CM, Rousseau MA, Xu Z, et al. Intervertebral disc replacement maintains cervical spine kinetics. Spine 2004;29:2809-14.
8. Quinnell RC, Stockdale HR. Some experimental observations of the influence of a single lumbar floating fusion on the remaining lumbar spine. Spine 1981;6:263-7.
9. Shono Y, Kaneda K, Abumi K, et al. Stability of posterior spinal instrumentation and its effects on adjacent motion segments in the lumbosacral spine. Spine 1998;23:1550-8.
10. Torgerson WR, Dotter WE. Comparative roentgenographic study of the asymptomatic and symptomatic lumbar spine. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1976;58:850-3.
11. Weinhoffer SL, Guyer RD, Herbert M, et al. Intradiscal pressure measurements above an instrumented fusion. A cadaveric study. Spine 1995;20:526-31.
12. Yang SW, Langrana NA, Lee CK. Biomechanics of lumbosacral spinal fusion in combined compression-torsion loads. Spine 1986;11:937-41.
13. Wigfield C, Gill S, Nelson R, et al. Influence of an artificial cervical joint compared with fusion on adjacent-level motion in the treatment of degenerative cervical disc disease. J Neurosurg Spine 2002;96:17-21.
14. DiAngelo DJ, Foley KT, Morrow BR, et al. In vitro biomechanics of cervical disc arthroplasty with the ProDisc-C total disc implant. Neurosurg Focus 2004;17:E7.
15. Dmitriev AE, Cunningham BW, Hu N, et al. Adjacent level intradiscal pressures following a cervical total disc replacement arthroplasty: An in-vitro human cadaveric model. 2004.
16. Natarajan RN, Williams JR, Andersson GB. Recent advances in analytical modeling of lumbar disc degeneration. Spine 2004;29:2733-41.
17. Panjabi M, Abumi K, Duranceau J, et al. Spinal stability and intersegmental muscle forces. A biomechanical model. Spine 1989;14:194-200.
18. Panjabi MM. The stabilizing system of the spine. Part II. Neutral zone and instability hypothesis. J Spinal Disord 1992;5:390-6.
19. Scholten PJ, Veldhuizen AG. The bending stiffness of the trunk. Spine 1986;11:463-7.
20. Cobb JR. Outline for the Study of Scoliosis. St. Louis, MO: CV Mosby; 1948.
21. Wong KW, Leong JC, Chan MK, et al. The flexion-extension profile of lumbar spine in 100 healthy volunteers. Spine 2004;29:1636-41.
22. Harada M, Abumi K, Ito M, et al. Cineradiographic motion analysis of normal lumbar spine during forward and backward flexion. Spine 2000;25:1932-7.
23. Stokes IA, Frymoyer JW. Segmental motion and instability. Spine 1987;12:688-91.
24. Dvorak J, Panjabi MM, Chang DG, et al. Functional radiographic diagnosis of the lumbar spine. Flexion-extension and lateral bending. Spine 1991;16:562-71.
25. Hayes MA, Howard TC, Gruel CR, et al. Roentgenographic evaluation of lumbar spine flexion-extension in asymptomatic individuals. Spine 1989;14:327-31.
26. Fleiss JL. The Design and Analysis of Clinical Experiments. 1st ed. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons; 1986.
27. Ghiselli G, Wang JC, Bhatia NN, et al. Adjacent segment degeneration in the lumbar spine. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004;86-A:1497-503.
28. Gillet P. The fate of the adjacent motion segments after lumbar fusion. J Spinal Disord Tech 2003;16:338-45.
29. Park P, Garton HJ, Gala VC, et al. Adjacent segment disease after lumbar or lumbosacral fusion: Review of the literature. Spine 2004;29:1938-44.
30. Olsewski JM, Schendel MJ, Wallace LJ, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging and biological changes in injured intervertebral discs under normal and increased mechanical demands. Spine 1996;21:1945-51.
31. Phillips FM, Reuben J, Wetzel FT. Intervertebral disc degeneration adjacent to a lumbar fusion. An experimental rabbit model. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2002;84:289-94.
32. Bastian L, Lange U, Knop C, et al. Evaluation of the mobility of adjacent segments after posterior thoracolumbar fixation: A biomechanical study. Eur Spine J 2001;10:295-300.
33. Chow DH, Luk KD, Evans JH, et al. Effects of short anterior lumbar interbody fusion on biomechanics of neighboring unfused segments. Spine 1996;21:549-55.
34. Esses SI, Doherty BJ, Crawford MJ, et al. Kinematic evaluation of lumbar fusion techniques. Spine 1996;21:676-84.
35. Ha KY, Schendel MJ, Lewis JL, et al. Effect of immobilization and configuration on lumbar adjacent-segment biomechanics. J Spinal Disord 1993;6:99-105.
36. Lee CK, Langrana NA. Lumbosacral spinal fusion. A biomechanical study. Spine 1984;9:574-81.
37. Nagata H, Schendel MJ, Transfeldt EE, et al. The effects of immobilization of long segments of the spine on the adjacent and distal facet force and lumbosacral motion. Spine 1993;18:2471-9.
38. Kanayama M, Abumi K, Kaneda K, et al. Phase lag of the intersegmental motion in flexion-extension of the lumbar and lumbosacral spine. An in vivo study. Spine 1996;21:1416-22.
39. Wilke HJ, Rohlmann A, Neller S, et al. Is it possible to simulate physiologic loading conditions by applying pure moments? A comparison of in vivo and in vitro load components in an internal fixator. Spine 2001;26:636-42.
40. Wilke HJ, Rohlmann A, Neller S, et al. ISSLS prize winner: A novel approach to determine trunk muscle forces during flexion and extension: A comparison of data from an in vitro experiment and in vivo measurements. Spine 2003;28:2585-93.
41. Nattrass CL, Nitschke JE, Disler PB, et al. Lumbar spine range of motion as a measure of physical and functional impairment: An investigation of validity. Clin Rehabil 1999;13:211-8.
42. Ensink FB, Saur PM, Frese K, et al. Lumbar range of motion: Influence of time of day and individual factors on measurements. Spine 1996;21:1339-43.
43. Beauchamp M, Labelle H, Grimard G, et al. Diurnal variation of Cobb angle measurement in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 1993;18:1581-3.
44. Reitman CA, Mauro KM, Nguyen L, et al. Intervertebral motion between flexion and extension in asymptomatic individuals. Spine 2004;29:2832-43.
45. Shea KG, Stevens PM, Nelson M, et al. A comparison of manual versus computer-assisted radiographic measurement. Intraobserver measurement variability for Cobb angles. Spine 1998;23:551-5.
46. Zmurko MG, Mooney JF III, Podeszwa DA, et al. Inter- and intraobserver variance of Cobb angle measurements with digital radiographs. J Surg Orthop Adv 2003;12:208-13.
47. Bendo JA, Ong B. Importance of correlating static and dynamic imaging studies in diagnosing degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. Am J Orthop 2001;30:247-50.
48. Rohlmann A, Zander T, Bergmann G. Effect of total disc replacement with ProDisc on intersegmental rotation of the lumbar spine. Spine 2005;30:738-43.
49. Goel VK, Vishnubhotla S, Patel T, et al. Load vs displacement control testing protocols for evaluating artifical disc mechanics. Paper presented at: 51st Annual Meeting of the Orthopaedic Research Society; February 20-23, 2005; Washington, DC.
50. Guyer RD, McAfee PC, Hochschuler SH, et al. Prospective randomized study of the Charite artificial disc: Data from two investigational centers. Spine J 2004;4:252S-9S.
51. Huang RC, Girardi FP, Cammisa FP Jr, et al. Long-term flexion-extension range of motion of the prodisc total disc replacement. J Spinal Disord Tech 2003;16:435-40.
52. Tropiano P, Huang RC, Girardi FP, et al. Lumbar disc replacement: Preliminary results with ProDisc II after a minimum follow-up period of 1 year. J Spinal Disord Tech 2003;16:362-8.
53. Zigler JE. Clinical results with ProDisc: European experience and U.S. investigation device exemption study. Spine 2003;28:S163-6.