Biomechanical evaluation of the kinematics of the cadaver lumbar spine following disc replacement with the prodisc-L prosthesis

Spine

Volumn 35, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 26-31

  Demetropoulos, Constantine K ^a   Sengupta, Dilip K ^b   Knaub, Mark A ^c   Wiater, Brett P ^d   Abjornson, Celeste ^e   Truumees, Eeric ^f   Herkowitz, Harry N ^f  

^a Toledo   (United States)

^b DARTMOUTH HITCHCOCK MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^c PENN STATE COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^e Johnson Johnson Company   (United States)

^f WILLIAM BEAUMONT HOSPITAL   (United States)

Author keywords

Adjacent level effects; Biomechanics; Kinematics; Lumbar spine; ProDisc L

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CADAVER; ENDOPROSTHESIS; EXPERIMENTAL MODEL; FACET JOINT; HUMAN; INTERVERTEBRAL DISK DEGENERATION; INTERVERTEBRAL DISK REPLACEMENT; JOINT; KINEMATICS; LUMBAR SPINE; PRESSURE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SPINE MOBILITY;

AGED; ARTHROPLASTY, REPLACEMENT; BIOMECHANICS; CADAVER; HUMANS; INTERVERTEBRAL DISK; INTERVERTEBRAL DISK DEGENERATION; LUMBAR VERTEBRAE; MIDDLE AGED; PROSTHESES AND IMPLANTS; RANGE OF MOTION, ARTICULAR; STRESS, MECHANICAL; WEIGHT-BEARING;

EID: 76149142780     PISSN: 03622436     EISSN: 15281159     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181c4eb9a     Document Type: Article

References (11)

1. 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.
2. Rohlmann A, Zander T, Bergmann G. Effect of total disc replacement with ProDisc on intersegmental rotation of the lumbar spine. Spine 2005; 30:738-743
3. Hitchon PW, Eichholz K, Barry C, et al. Biomechanical studies of an artificial disc implant in the human cadaveric spine. J Neurosurg Spine 2005;2:339-343
4. Huang RC, Girardi FP, Cammisa FP Jr, et al. The implications of constraint in lumbar total disc replacement. J Spinal Disord Tech 2003;16:412-417
5. Taksali S, Grauer JN, Vaccaro AR. Material considerations for intervertebral disc replacement implants. Spine J 2004;4:231S-8S.
6. Panjabi MM, Abumi K, Duranceau J, et al. Biomechanical evaluation of spinal fixation devices: II. Stability provided by eight internal fixation devices. Spine 1988;13:1135-1140
7. Panjabi MM. Biomechanical evaluation of spinal fixation devices: I. A conceptual framework. Spine 1988;13:1129-1134
8. Patwardhan AG, Havey RM, Meade KP, et al. A follower load increases the load-carrying capacity of the lumbar spine in compression. Spine 1999;24: 1003-1009
9. Cripton PA, Dumas GA, Nolte LP. A minimally disruptive technique for measuring intervertebral disc pressure in vitro: application to the cervical spine. J Biomech 2001;34:545-549
10. 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.
11. Eijkelkamp MF, van Donkelaar CC, Veldhuizen AG, et al. Requirements for an artificial intervertebral disc. Int J Artif Organs 2001;24:311-321