Insertion of the artificial disc replacement: A cadaver study comparing the conventional surgical technique and the use of a navigation system

Spine

Volumn 34, Issue 10, 2009, Pages 1110-1115

  Rauschmann, Michael A ^a   Thalgott, John ^b   Fogarty, Madilyne ^b   Nichlos, Manos ^a   Kleinszig, Gerhard ^c   Knap, Mariusz ^d   Kafchitsas, Konstantinos ^a  

^a GOETHE UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^b International Spinal Development and Research Foundation   (United States)

^c BRAINLAB AG   (Germany)

^d BrainLAB ^*  (Germany)

Author keywords

Artificial disc; Computer assisted navigation; Image guided surgery; Lumbar spine; Navigation; Spine; Total disc replacement

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ADULT; AGED; ARTHROPLASTY; ARTICLE; ARTIFICIAL DISK REPLACEMENT; CADAVER; COMPUTER ASSISTED SURGERY; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; COMPUTER PROGRAM; DEVICE; FEMALE; FLUOROSCOPY; HUMAN; IMPLANT; IMPLANTATION; INTERVERTEBRAL DISK; INTERVERTEBRAL DISK DEGENERATION; LUMBAR SPINE; MALE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTHESIS; SPONDYLOLISTHESIS; SURGICAL APPROACH; SURGICAL TECHNIQUE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; EVALUATION; IMAGE PROCESSING; INSTRUMENTATION; INTERVERTEBRAL DISK HERNIA; INTERVERTEBRAL DISKECTOMY; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; NEURONAVIGATION; PATHOLOGY; PATIENT MONITORING; PEROPERATIVE COMPLICATION; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATION; PROSTHESES AND ORTHOSES; RADIOGRAPHY; REPRODUCIBILITY; SPINE; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; ARTHROPLASTY; CADAVER; DISKECTOMY; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; INTERVERTEBRAL DISK DISPLACEMENT; INTRAOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MONITORING, INTRAOPERATIVE; NEURONAVIGATION; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS; PROSTHESES AND IMPLANTS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SPINE; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 67650303366     PISSN: 03622436     EISSN: 15281159     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31819e2235     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Cunningham B, Gordon J, Dmitriev A, et al. Biomechanical evaluation of total disc replacement arthroplasty: an in vitro human cadaveric model. Spine 2003;28:S110-7.
2. Cinotti G, David T, Postacchini F. Results of disc prosthesis after a minimum follow-up period of 2 years. Spine 1996;21:995-1000.
3. Lemaire J, Skalli W, Lavaste F, et al. Intervertebral disc prosthesis. Results and prospects for the year 2000. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1997:64-76.
4. McAfee P, Fedder I, Saiedy S, et al. SB Charite disc replacement: report of 60 prospective randomized cases in a US center. J Spinal Disord Tech 2003;16: 424-33.
5. Zeegers M, Tan F, Verhagen A, et al. Elevated risk of cancer of the urinary tract for alcohol drinkers: a meta-analysis. Cancer Causes Control 1999;10: 445-51.
6. McAfee PC, Cunningham B, Holsapple G, et al. A prospective randomized multicenter FDA investigational device exemption study of lumbar total disc replacement with the CHARITÉTMartificial discversus lumbar fusion: evaluation of radiographic outcomes and correlation of surgical technique accuracy with clinical outcomes. Spine 2005;30:1576-83; discussion E388-90.
7. David T. Long-Term Results of one-level Lumbar Arthroplasty. Spine 2007; 32:661-6.
8. Bü ttner-Janz K, Hochshuler S, McAfee P. The Artificial Disk. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag; 2003.
9. Link H. History, design, and biomechanics of the LINK SB Charite artificial disc. Eur Spine J 2002;2(suppl 11):S98-105.
10. Gertzbein S, Seligman J, Holtby R, et al. Centrode characteristics of the lumbar spine as a function of segmental instability. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1986:48-51.
11. White A, Panjabi M. Clinical Biomechanics of the Spineed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Willams and Wilkins; 1990.
12. Smith H, Vaccaro A, Yuan P, et al. The use of computerized image guidance in lumbar disk arthroplasty. J Spinal Disord Tech 2006;19:22-7.
13. Fujiwara A, Tamai K, An HS. Orientation and Osteoarthritis of the lumbar facet joint. Clin Orthop 2001;385:88-94.
14. Guyer RD, Burd TA, Hochschuler SH, et al. Total disc replacement: implants and clinical results. In: Guyer RD, Zigler JE, eds. Spinal Arthroplasty, a New Era in Spine Care. St. Louis, MO: Quality Medical; 2005:180-222.
15. Austin M, Vaccaro A, Brislin B, et al. Image-guided spine surgery: a cadaver study comparing conventional open laminoforaminotomy and 2 imageguided techniques for pedicle screw placement in posterolateral fusion and nonfusion models. Spine 2002;27:2503-8.
16. Mirza S, Wiggins G, Kuntz C, et al. Accuracy of thoracic vertebral body screw placement using standard fluoroscopy, fluoroscopic image guidance, and computed tomographic image guidance: a cadaver study. Spine 2003; 28:402-13.
17. Mathews HH, Eisermann L, Le Huec JC, et al. Total disc arthroplasty using Maverick total disc replacement. In: Guyer RD, Zigler JE, eds. Spinal Arthroplasty, a New Era in Spine Care. St. Louis, MO: Quality Medical; 2005: 224-38.
18. Marshman LA, Friesem T, Rampersud YR, et al. Significantly improved lumbar arthroplasty placement using image guidance: technical note. Spine 2007;32:2027-30.
19. Deen HG, Nottmeier EW. Balloon kyphoplasty for treatment of sacral insufficiency fractures: report of three cases. Neurosurg Focus 2005;18:E7.