Biomechanical comparison of a two-level Maverick disc replacement with a hybrid one-level disc replacement and one-level anterior lumbar interbody fusion

Spine Journal

Volumn 9, Issue 10, 2009, Pages 830-835

  Erkan, Serkan ^a,b   Rivera, Yamil ^b   Wu, Chunhui ^c   Mehbod, Amir A ^b   Transfeldt, Ensor E ^b  

^a CELAL BAYAR UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

^b TWIN CITIES SPINE CENTER   (United States)

^c Foundation for the Advancement of Spinal Knowledge   (United States)

Author keywords

Biomechanics; Fusion; Maverick; Total disc replacement

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIOMECHANICS; CADAVER; CONTROLLED STUDY; EXPERIMENTAL MODEL; HUMAN; HYBRID; IN VITRO STUDY; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; JOINT PROSTHESIS; LUMBAR DISK; MULTILEVEL LUMBAR DISC DISEASE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANGE OF MOTION; SPINE DISEASE; SPINE FUSION; SURGICAL TECHNIQUE; VERTEBRAL CANAL STENOSIS;

ADULT; ARTHROPLASTY, REPLACEMENT; BIOMECHANICS; CADAVER; FEMALE; HUMANS; INTERVERTEBRAL DISK; LUMBAR VERTEBRAE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; RANGE OF MOTION, ARTICULAR; SPINAL FUSION;

EID: 70249100584     PISSN: 15299430     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2009.04.014     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Videman T., and Battie M.C. The influence of occupation on lumbar degeneration. Spine 24 (1999) 1164-1168
2. Herkowitz H.N., and Sidhu K.S. Lumbar spine fusion in the treatment of degenerative conditions: current indications and recommendations. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 3 (1995) 123-135
3. Jackson R.K., Boston D.A., and Edge A.J. Lateral mass fusion. A prospective study of a consecutive series with long-term follow-up. Spine 10 (1985) 828-832
4. Kiviluoto O., Santavirta S., Salenius P., Morri P., and Pylkkanen P. Postero-lateral spine fusion. A 1-4-year follow-up of 80 consecutive patients. Acta Orthop Scand 56 (1985) 152-154
5. O'Beirne J., O'Neill D., Gallagher J., and Williams D.H. Spinal fusion for back pain: a clinical and radiological review. J Spinal Disord 5 (1992) 32-38
6. Gillet P. The fate of the adjacent motion segments after lumbar fusion. J Spinal Disord Tech 16 (2003) 338-345
7. Panjabi M., Henderson G., Abjornson C., and Yue J. Multidirectional testing of one- and two-level ProDisc-L versus simulated fusions. Spine 32 (2007) 1311-1319
8. Zigler J., Delamarter R., Spivak J.M., et al. Results of the prospective, randomized, multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study of the ProDisc-L total disc replacement versus circumferential fusion for the treatment of 1-level degenerative disc disease. Spine 32 (2007) 1155-1162 discussion 1163
9. Bertagnoli R., Yue J.J., Shah R.V., et al. The treatment of disabling multilevel lumbar discogenic low back pain with total disc arthroplasty utilizing the ProDisc prosthesis: a prospective study with 2-year minimum follow-up. Spine 30 (2005) 2192-2199
10. SariAli el H., Lemaire J.P., Pascal-Mousselard H., Carrier H., and Skalli W. In vivo study of the kinematics in axial rotation of the lumbar spine after total intervertebral disc replacement: long-term results: a 10-14 years follow up evaluation. Eur Spine J 15 (2006) 1501-1510
11. Siepe C.J., Mayer H.M., Wiechert K., and Korge A. Clinical results of total lumbar disc replacement with ProDisc II: three-year results for different indications. Spine 31 (2006) 1923-1932
12. Le Huec J.C., Mathews H., Basso Y., et al. Clinical results of Maverick lumbar total disc replacement: two-year prospective follow-up. Orthop Clin North Am 36 (2005) 315-322
13. Akesen B., Wu C., Mehbod A.A., and Transfeldt E.E. Biomechanical evaluation of paracoccygeal transsacral fixation. J Spinal Disord Tech 21 (2008) 39-44
14. Cho W., Wu C., Mehbod A.A., and Transfeldt E.E. Comparison of cage designs for transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a biomechanical study. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 23 (2008) 979-985
15. Mathews H.H., Lehuec J.C., Friesem T., Zdeblick T., and Eisermann L. Design rationale and biomechanics of Maverick total disc arthroplasty with early clinical results. Spine J 4 (2004) 268S-275S
16. Hitchon P.W., Eichholz K., Barry C., et al. Biomechanical studies of an artificial disc implant in the human cadaveric spine. J Neurosurg Spine 2 (2005) 339-343
17. Cunningham B.W., Gordon J.D., Dmitriev A.E., Hu N., and McAfee P.C. Biomechanical evaluation of total disc replacement arthroplasty: an in vitro human cadaveric model. Spine 28 (2003) S110-S117
18. Panjabi M.M., Oxland T.R., Yamamoto I., and Crisco J.J. Mechanical behavior of the human lumbar and lumbosacral spine as shown by three-dimensional- load-displacement curves. J Bone Joint Surg Am 76 (1994) 413-424
19. O'Leary P., Nicolakis M., Lorenz M.A., et al. Response of Charite total disc replacement under physiologic loads: prosthesis component motion patterns. Spine J 5 (2005) 590-599
20. Kotani Y., Cunningham B.W., Abumi K., et al. Multidirectional flexibility analysis of anterior and posterior lumbar artificial disc reconstruction: in vitro human cadaveric spine model. Eur Spine J 15 (2006) 1511-1520