The restoration of lumbar intervertebral disc load distribution: A comparison of three nucleus replacement technologies

Spine

Volumn 35, Issue 15, 2010, Pages 1445-1453

  Dahl, Michael C ^a   Ahrens, Michael ^b   Sherman, John E ^c   Martz, Erik O ^a  

^a Disc Dynamics Inc   (United States)

^b University of Lü Beck   (Germany)

^c TWIN CITIES ORTHOPEDICS   (United States)

Author keywords

Annulus shear strain; Degenerative disc disease; Finite element; Nucleus replacement; Subsidence

Indexed keywords

POLYETHERETHERKETONE; POLYURETHAN; HYDROGEL;

AGED; ARTICLE; BONE DENSITY; CADAVER; COMPRESSION; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; CONTROLLED STUDY; ENDPLATE POTENTIAL; EXTENSOR MUSCLE; FLEXOR REFLEX; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; HYDROGEL; IMPLANT; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; INTERVERTEBRAL DISK DEGENERATION; LUMBAR DISK; MALE; NUCLEUS PULPOSUS; NUCLEUS PULPOSUS REPLACEMENT; OSTEOLYSIS; PRESSURE MEASUREMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SHEAR STRESS; SPINE SURGERY; VERTEBRA BODY; WEIGHT BEARING; ARTHROPLASTY; AUDIOVISUAL EQUIPMENT; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DEVICES; INTERVERTEBRAL DISC DEGENERATION; INTERVERTEBRAL DISK; LUMBAR VERTEBRA; PATHOLOGY; PROCEDURES; PROSTHESES AND ORTHOSES;

AGED; ARTHROPLASTY, REPLACEMENT; COMPUTER SIMULATION; HUMANS; HYDROGELS; INTERVERTEBRAL DISK; INTERVERTEBRAL DISK DEGENERATION; LUMBAR VERTEBRAE; MALE; MODELS, ANATOMIC; PROSTHESES AND IMPLANTS; INTERVERTEBRAL DISC; INTERVERTEBRAL DISC DEGENERATION;

EID: 77954886701     PISSN: 03622436     EISSN: 15281159     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181bef192     Document Type: Article

References (71)

1. Fernstrom U. Arthroplasty with intercorporal endoprothesis in herniated disc and in painful disc. Acta Chir Scand Suppl 1966;357:154-9.
2. Kumar MN, Baklanov A, Chopin D. Correlation between sagittal plane changes and adjacent segment degeneration following lumbar spine fusion. Eur Spine J 2001;10:314-9.
3. Pellise F, Hernandez A, Vidal X, et al. Radiologic assessment of all unfused lumbar segments 7.5 years after instrumented posterior spinal fusion. Spine 2007;32:574-9.
4. Schulte TL, Leistra F, Bullmann V, et al. Disc height reduction in adjacent segments and clinical outcome 10 years after lumbar 360 degrees fusion. Eur Spine J 2007;16:2152-8.
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. Auerbach JD, Wills BP, McIntosh TC, et al. Evaluation of spinal kinematics following lumbar total disc replacement and circumferential fusion using in vivo fluoroscopy. Spine 2007;32:527-36.
7. Bertagnoli R, Sabatino CT, Edwards JT, et al. Mechanical testing of a novel hydrogel nucleus replacement implant. Spine J 2005;5:672-81.
8. Bao QB, Yuan HA, Songer MN. Pioneer Surgical Technology NUBAC artificial nucleus. In: Kim DH, ed. Dynamic Reconstruction of the Spine. New York, NY: Thiene Medical Publishers; 2006:128-36.
9. Joshi A, Fussell G, Thomas J, et al. Functional compressive mechanics of a PVA/PVP nucleus pulposus replacement. Biomaterials 2006;27:176-84.
10. Cloyd JM, Malhotra NR, Weng L, et al. Material properties in unconfined compression of human nucleus pulposus, injectable hyaluronic acid-based hydrogels and tissue engineering scaffolds. Eur Spine J 2007;16:1892-8.
11. Beaubien B, Freeman A, Seme S. Motion segment stiffness and subsidence with hydrated and dehydrated nucleus arthroplasty devices. Paper presented at: Spine Arthroplasty Society (SAS) 8th Annual Meeting: Global Symposium on Motion Preservation Technology; 2008; Motion, Miami, FL.
12. Ray CD. The PDN prosthetic disc-nucleus device. Eur Spine J 2002;11: S137-42.
13. Tsantrizos A, Ordway NR, Myint K, et al. Mechanical and biomechanical characterization of a polyurethane nucleus replacement device injected and cured in situ within a balloon. SAS J 2008;2:28-39.
14. Di Martino A, Vaccaro AR, Lee JY, et al. Nucleus pulposus replacement: basic science and indications for clinical use. Spine 2005;30:S16-22.
15. Bono CM, Garfin SR. History and evolution of disc replacement. Spine J 2004;4:145S-50S.
16. Bertagnoli R, Schonmayr R. Surgical and clinical results with the PDN prosthetic disc-nucleus device. Eur Spine J 2002;11:S143-8.
17. Allen MJ, Schoonmaker JE, Bauer TW, et al. Preclinical evaluation of a poly (vinyl alcohol) hydrogel implant as a replacement for the nucleus pulposus. Spine 2004;29:515-23.
18. Klara PM, Ray CD. Artificial nucleus replacement: clinical experience. Spine 2002;27:1374-7.
19. Denoziere G, Ku DN. Biomechanical comparison between fusion of two vertebrae and implantation of an artificial intervertebral disc. J Biomech 2006;39:766-75.
20. 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.
21. Polikeit A, Ferguson SJ, Nolte LP, et al. Factors influencing stresses in the lumbar spine after the insertion of intervertebral cages: finite element analysis. Eur Spine J 2003;12:413-20.
22. Moumene M, Geisler FH. Comparison of biomechanical function at ideal and varied surgical placement for two lumbar artificial disc implant designs: mobile-core versus fixed-core. Spine 2007;32:1840-51.
23. Noailly J, Lacroix D, Planell JA. Finite element study of a novel interverte-bral disc substitute. Spine 2005;30:2257-64.
24. Rohlmann A, Burra NK, Zander T, et al. Comparison of the effects of bilateral posterior dynamic and rigid fixation devices on the loads in the lumbar spine: a finite element analysis. Eur Spine J 2007;16:1223-31.
25. Rohlmann A, Zander T, Bergmann G. Comparison of the biomechanical effects of posterior and anterior spine-stabilizing implants. Eur Spine J 2005; 14:445-53.
26. Rundell SA, Auerbach JD, Balderston RA, et al. Total disc replacement positioning affects facet contact forces and vertebral body strains. Spine 2008;33:2510-7.
27. Rundell SA, Guerin HL, Auerbach JD, et al. Effect of nucleus replacement device properties on lumbar spine mechanics. Spine 2009;34:2022-32.
28. White AA, Panjabi MM. Clinical Biomechanics of the Spine. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, PA: J.B. Lippincott Company; 1990.
29. Yosibash Z, Padan R, Joskowicz L, et al. A CT-based high-order finite element analysis of the human proximal femur compared to in-vitro experiments. J Biomech Eng 2007;129:297-309. (Pubitemid 47066843)
30. Sawatari T, Tsumura H, Iesaka K, et al. Three-dimensional finite element analysis of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty\the influence of tibial component inclination. J Orthop Res 2005;23:549-54.
31. Ulrich D, van Rietbergen B, Laib A, et al. The ability of three-dimensional structural indices to reflect mechanical aspects of trabecular bone. Bone 1999;25:55-60.
32. Morgan EF, Bayraktar HH, Keaveny TM. Trabecular bone modulus-density relationships depend on anatomic site. J Biomech 2003;36:897-904.
33. Kopperdahl DL, Keaveny TM. Yield strain behavior of trabecular bone. J Biomech 1998;31:601-8.
34. Mosekilde L, Danielsen CC. Biomechanical competence of vertebral trabec-ular bone in relation to ash density and age in normal individuals. Bone 1987;8:79-85.
35. Hansson TH, Keller TS, Panjabi MM. A study of the compressive properties of lumbar vertebral trabeculae: effects of tissue characteristics. Spine 1987; 12:56-62.
36. Frei H, Oxland TR, Rathonyi GC, et al. The effect of nucleotomy on lumbar spine mechanics in compression and shear loading. Spine 2001;26:2080-9.
37. Yamamoto I, Panjabi MM, Crisco T, et al. Three-dimensional movements of the whole lumbar spine and lumbosacral joint. Spine 1989;14:1256-60.
38. Mimura M, Panjabi MM, Oxland TR, et al. Disc degeneration affects the multidirectional flexibility of the lumbar spine. Spine 1994;19:1371-80.
39. Panjabi MM, Oxland TR, Yamamoto I, et al. Mechanical behavior of the human lumbar and lumbosacral spine as shown by three-dimensional load-displacement curves. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 1994;76:413-24.
40. Fujiwara A, Lim TH, An HS, et al. The effect of disc degeneration and facet joint osteoarthritis on the segmental flexibility of the lumbar spine. Spine 2000;25:3036-44.
41. Schmoelz W, Huber JF, Nydegger T, et al. Dynamic stabilization of the lumbar spine and its effects on adjacent segments: an in vitro experiment. J Spinal Disord Tech 2003;16:418-23.
42. Niosi CA, Zhu QA, Wilson DC, et al. Biomechanical characterization of the three-dimensional kinematic behavior of the Dynesys dynamic stabilization system: an in vitro study. Eur Spine J 2006;15:913-22.
43. Kumaresan S, Yoganandan N, Pintar FA, et al. Contribution of disc degeneration to osteophyte formation in the cervical spine: a biomechanical investigation. J Orthop Res 2001;19:977-84.
44. Beaubien BP, Freeman AL, Sherman TM, et al. Subsidence characteristics of two nucleus replacement devices compared to a PEEK interbody fusion device. Paper presented at: Spine Arthroplasty Society (SAS) 7th Annual Meeting: Global Symposium on Motion Preservation Technology; 2007. Paper PA-TH20.
45. Freeman AL, Beaubien BP, Gullickson AL, et al. Motion segment stiffness does not predict compressive load sharing: comparison of two nuclear replacements to a PEEK interbody spacer. Paper presented at: Spine Arthro-plasty Society (SAS) 7th Annual Meeting: Global Symposium on Motion Preservation Technology; May 5-7, 2007; Berlin, Germany. Poster P094.
46. Kavanagh S, Norton B, Hutton WC, et al. Finite element analysis of a prosthetic disc nucleus device. Eur Spine J 2002;11:S34.
47. Bao QB, Songer M, Pimenta L, et al. Nubac disc arthroplasty: preclinical studies and preliminary safety and efficacy evaluations. SAS J2007;1:36-45.
48. Coric D, Mummaneni PV. Nucleus replacement technologies. J Neurosurg Spine 2008;8:115-20.
49. Kurtz SM, Devine JN. PEEK biomaterials in trauma, orthopedic, and spinal implants. Biomaterials 2007;28:4845-69.
50. Panjabi MM. Hybrid multidirectional test method to evaluate spinal adjacent-level effects. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 2007;22:257-65.
51. Nagaraja S, Couse TL, Guldberg RE. Trabecular bone microdamage and microstructural stresses under uniaxial compression. J Biomech 2005;38: 707-16.
52. Weinans H, Sumner DR, Igloria R, et al. Sensitivity of periprosthetic stress-shielding to load and the bone density-modulus relationship in subject-specific finite element models. J Biomech 2000;33:809-17.
53. Kerner J, Huiskes R, van Lenthe GH, et al. Correlation between pre-operative periprosthetic bone density and post-operative bone loss in THA can be explained by strain-adaptive remodeling. J Biomech 1999;32:695-703.
54. Schmidt H, Kettler A, Heuer F, et al. Intradiscal pressure, shear strain, and fiber strain in the intervertebral disc under combined loading. Spine 2007; 32:748-55.
55. Costi JJ, Stokes IA, Gardner-Morse M, et al. Direct measurement of inter-vertebral disc maximum shear strain in six degrees of freedom: motions that place disc tissue at risk of injury. J Biomech 2007;40:2457-66.
56. Bartels RH, Donk RD, Feuth T. Subsidence of stand-alone cervical carbon fiber cages. Neurosurgery 2006;58:502-8.
57. Gercek E, Arlet V, Delisle J, et al. Subsidence of stand-alone cervical cages in anterior interbody fusion: warning. Eur Spine J 2003;12:513-6.
58. Barsa P, Suchomel P. Factors affecting sagittal malalignment due to cage subsidence in standalone cage assisted anterior cervical fusion. Eur Spine J 2007;16:1395-400.
59. Choi JY, Sung KH. Subsidence after anterior lumbar interbody fusion using paired stand-alone rectangular cages. Eur Spine J 2006;15:16-22.
60. Beutler WJ, Peppelman WC Jr. Anterior lumbar fusion with paired BAK standard and paired BAK Proximity cages: subsidence incidence, subsidence factors, and clinical outcome. Spine J 2003;3:289-93.
61. Bogduk N, Tynan W, Wilson AS. The nerve supply to the human lumbar intervertebral discs. J Anat 1981;132(pt 1):39-56.
62. Buckwalter JA. Spine update: aging and degeneration of the human interver-tebral disc. Spine 1995;20:1307-14.
63. Coppes MH, Marani E, Thomeer RT, et al. Innervation of annulus fibrosus in low back pain [letter]. Lancet 1990;336:189-90.
64. Freemont AJ, Peacock TE, Goupille P, et al. Nerve in growth into diseased intervertebral disc in chronic back pain. Lancet 1997;350:178-81.
65. Adams MA, Hutton WC. Gradual disc prolapse. Spine 1985;10:524-31.
66. Goel VK, Monroe BT, Gilbertson LG, et al. Interlaminar shear stresses and laminae separation in a disc. Finite element analysis of the L3-L4 motion segment subjected to axial compressive loads. Spine 1995;20:689-98.
67. Meakin JR, Reid JE, Hukins DW. Replacing the nucleus pulposus of the intervertebral disc. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 2001;16:560-5.
68. Bogduk N, Twomey LT. Clinical Anatomy of the Lumbar Spine and Sacrum. 3rd ed. Edinburgh, United Kingdom: Churchill Livingstone; 1997:215-25.
69. Mulholland RC. The mythof lumbar instability: the importance of abnormal loading as a cause of low back pain. Eur Spine J 2008;17:619-25.
70. Meakin JR. Replacing the nucleus pulposus of the intervertebral disk: prediction of suitable properties of a replacement material using finite element analysis. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2001;12:207-13.
71. Grosland NM, Goel VK. Vertebral endplate morphology follows bone remodeling principles. Spine 2007;32:E667-73.