The effect of implant size and device keel on vertebral compression properties in lumbar total disc replacement

Spine Journal

Volumn 10, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 333-340

  Auerbach, Joshua D ^a,b   Ballester, Carrie M ^b   Hammond, Frank ^b   Carine, Ehren T ^b   Balderston, Richard A ^c   Elliott, Dawn M ^b  

^a ALBERT EINSTEIN COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^c PENNSYLVANIA HOSPITAL   (United States)

Author keywords

Compression; End plate; Keel; Lumbar total disc arthroplasty; Mechanics

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIOMECHANICS; BONE DENSITY; BONE PROSTHESIS; CADAVER; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; INTERVERTEBRAL DISKECTOMY; LUMBAR SPINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; VERTEBRA;

ADULT; AGED; BIOMECHANICS; BONE DENSITY; COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH; DISKECTOMY; EQUIPMENT FAILURE ANALYSIS; HUMANS; INTERVERTEBRAL DISK; JOINT PROSTHESIS; LUMBAR VERTEBRAE; MATERIALS TESTING; MIDDLE AGED; POLYMETHYL METHACRYLATE; WEIGHT-BEARING;

EID: 77950273561     PISSN: 15299430     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2010.01.008     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. McAfee P.C., Fedder I.L., Saiedy S., et al. SB Charite disc replacement: report of 60 prospective randomized cases in a US center. J Spinal Disord Tech 16 (2003) 424-433
2. McAfee P.C., Cunningham B., Holsapple G., et al. A prospective, randomized, multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study of lumbar total disc replacement with the CHARITE artificial disc versus lumbar fusion: part II: evaluation of radiographic outcomes and correlation of surgical technique accuracy with clinical outcomes. Spine 30 (2005) 1576-1583
3. Zeller J.L. Artificial spinal disk superior to fusion for treating degenerative disk disease. JAMA 296 (2006) 2665-2667
4. 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
5. Zigler J.E., Burd T.A., Vialle E.N., et al. Lumbar spine arthroplasty: early results using the ProDisc II: a prospective randomized trial of arthroplasty versus fusion. J Spinal Disord Tech 16 (2003) 352-361
6. Leary S.P., Regan J.J., Lanman T.H., et al. Revision and explantation strategies involving the CHARITE lumbar artificial disc replacement. Spine 32 (2007) 1001-1011
7. Shim C.S., Lee S., Maeng D.H., et al. Vertical split fracture of the vertebral body following total disc replacement using ProDisc: report of two cases. J Spinal Disord Tech 18 (2005) 465-469
8. van O.A., Oner F.C., and Verbout A.J. Complications of artificial disc replacement: a report of 27 patients with the SB Charite disc. J Spinal Disord Tech 16 (2003) 369-383
9. van O.A., Schurink G.W., Oner F.C., et al. Findings in 67 patients with recurrent or persistent symptoms after implantation of a disc prosthesis for low back pain. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 151 (2007) 1577-1584
10. van O.A., Kurtz S.M., Stessels F., et al. Polyethylene wear debris and long-term clinical failure of the Charite disc prosthesis: a study of 4 patients. Spine 32 (2007) 223-229
11. Wagner W.H., Regan J.J., Leary S.P., et al. Access strategies for revision or explantation of the Charite lumbar artificial disc replacement. J Vasc Surg 44 (2006) 1266-1272
12. Cinotti G., David T., and Postacchini F. Results of disc prosthesis after a minimum follow-up period of 2 years. Spine 21 (1996) 995-1000
13. Zeegers W.S., Bohnen L.M., Laaper M., et al. Artificial disc replacement with the modular type SB Charite III: 2-year results in 50 prospectively studied patients. Eur Spine J 8 (1999) 210-217
14. Kurtz S.M., van O.A., Ross R., et al. Polyethylene wear and rim fracture in total disc arthroplasty. Spine J 7 (2007) 12-21
15. Oxland T.R., Grant J.P., Dvorak M.F., et al. Effects of endplate removal on the structural properties of the lower lumbar vertebral bodies. Spine 28 (2003) 771-777
16. Hasegawa K., Abe M., Washio T., et al. An experimental study on the interface strength between titanium mesh cage and vertebra in reference to vertebral bone mineral density. Spine 26 (2001) 957-963
17. Lowe T.G., Hashim S., Wilson L.A., et al. A biomechanical study of regional endplate strength and cage morphology as it relates to structural interbody support. Spine 29 (2004) 2389-2394
18. Tan J.S., Bailey C.S., Dvorak M.F., et al. Interbody device shape and size are important to strengthen the vertebra-implant interface. Spine 30 (2005) 638-644
19. Stieber J.R., and Donald III G.D. Early failure of lumbar disc replacement: case report and review of the literature. J Spinal Disord Tech 19 (2006) 55-60
20. Higgins K.B., Harten R.D., Langrana N.A., et al. Biomechanical effects of unipedicular vertebroplasty on intact vertebrae. Spine 28 (2003) 1540-1547
21. O'Connell G.D., Vresilovic E.J., and Elliott D.M. Comparison of animals used in disc research to human lumbar disc geometry. Spine 32 (2007) 328-333
22. Panjabi M.M., Goel V., Oxland T., et al. Human lumbar vertebrae. Quantitative three-dimensional anatomy. Spine 17 (1992) 299-306
23. Auerbach JD, Yoder HY, Maurer PM, et al. Vertebral body augmentation with Cortoss improves compression biomechanics for lumbar disc arthroplasty. Proceedings of the 34th International Society for the Study of the Lumbar Spine Annual Meeting, Hong Kong, 151. 2007. [Ref Type: Abstract].
24. Delamarter R.B., Bae H.W., and Pradhan B.B. Clinical results of ProDisc-II lumbar total disc replacement: report from the United States clinical trial. Orthop Clin North Am 36 (2005) 301-313
25. Auerbach J.D., Wills B.P., McIntosh T.C., et al. Evaluation of spinal kinematics following lumbar total disc replacement and circumferential fusion using in vivo fluoroscopy. Spine 32 (2007) 527-536
26. Cunningham B.W., Gordon J.D., Dmitriev A.E., et al. Biomechanical evaluation of total disc replacement arthroplasty: an in vitro human cadaveric model. Spine 28 (2003) S110-S117
27. Dmitriev A.E., Cunningham B.W., Hu N., et al. Adjacent level intradiscal pressure and segmental kinematics following a cervical total disc arthroplasty: an in vitro human cadaveric model. Spine 30 (2005) 1165-1172
28. Ghiselli G., Wang J.C., Bhatia N.N., et al. Adjacent segment degeneration in the lumbar spine. J Bone Joint Surg Am 86-A (2004) 1497-1503
29. Gillet P. The fate of the adjacent motion segments after lumbar fusion. J Spinal Disord Tech 16 (2003) 338-345
30. Lai P.L., Chen L.H., Niu C.C., et al. Relation between laminectomy and development of adjacent segment instability after lumbar fusion with pedicle fixation. Spine 29 (2004) 2527-2532
31. Lee C.K. Accelerated degeneration of the segment adjacent to a lumbar fusion. Spine 13 (1988) 375-377
32. Park P., Garton H.J., Gala V.C., et al. Adjacent segment disease after lumbar or lumbosacral fusion: review of the literature. Spine 29 (2004) 1938-1944
33. Quinnell R.C., and Stockdale H.R. Some experimental observations of the influence of a single lumbar floating fusion on the remaining lumbar spine. Spine 6 (1981) 263-267
34. 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 23 (1998) 1550-1558
35. Weinhoffer S.L., Guyer R.D., Herbert M., et al. Intradiscal pressure measurements above an instrumented fusion. A cadaveric study. Spine 20 (1995) 526-531
36. Huang R.C., Lim M.R., Girardi F.P., et al. The prevalence of contraindications to total disc replacement in a cohort of lumbar surgical patients. Spine 29 (2004) 2538-2541
37. Wong D.A., Annesser B., Birney T., et al. Incidence of contraindications to total disc arthroplasty: a retrospective review of 100 consecutive fusion patients with a specific analysis of facet arthrosis. Spine J 7 (2007) 5-11
38. David T. Long-term results of one-level lumbar arthroplasty: minimum 10-year follow-up of the CHARITE artificial disc in 106 patients. Spine 32 (2007) 661-666
39. Labrom R.D., Tan J.S., Reilly C.W., et al. The effect of interbody cage positioning on lumbosacral vertebral endplate failure in compression. Spine 30 (2005) E556-E561
40. Polikeit A., Ferguson S.J., Nolte L.P., et al. Factors influencing stresses in the lumbar spine after the insertion of intervertebral cages: finite element analysis. Eur Spine J 12 (2003) 413-420
41. Siepe C.J., Wiechert K., Khattab M.F., et al. Total lumbar disc replacement in athletes: clinical results, return to sport and athletic performance. Eur Spine J 16 (2007) 1001-1013
42. Kayanja M.M., Schlenk R., Togawa D., et al. The biomechanics of 1, 2, and 3 levels of vertebral augmentation with polymethylmethacrylate in multilevel spinal segments. Spine 31 (2006) 769-774
43. Ochia R.S., Tencer A.F., and Ching R.P. Effect of loading rate on endplate and vertebral body strength in human lumbar vertebrae. J Biomech 36 (2003) 1875-1881
44. Caspi I., Levinkopf M., and Nerubay J. Results of lumbar disk prosthesis after a follow-up period of 48 months. Isr Med Assoc J 5 (2003) 9-11
45. Griffith S.L., Shelokov A.P., Buttner-Janz K., et al. A multicenter retrospective study of the clinical results of the LINK SB Charite intervertebral prosthesis. The initial European experience. Spine 19 (1994) 1842-1849
46. Tropiano P., Huang R.C., Girardi F.P., et al. Lumbar total disc replacement. Seven to eleven-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 87 (2005) 490-496