Analysis of factors that may influence range of motion after cervical disc arthroplasty

Spine Journal

Volumn 10, Issue 8, 2010, Pages 683-688

  Kim, Seok Woo ^a   Paik, Sang Hoon ^a   Castro, Paolo Antonio F ^a   Baek, Suk Woo ^a   Shin, Dong Jou ^a   Kwak, Yoon Hae ^a   Ju, Young Su ^a  

^a Hallym University Sacred Heart Hospital   (South Korea)

Author keywords

Cervical artificial disc; Cervical disc arthroplasty; Factor analysis; Range of motion

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTHROPLASTY; ARTICLE; BONE RESECTION; CERVICAL SPINE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; FEMALE; GROUPS BY AGE; HUMAN; MALE; POSTOPERATIVE PERIOD; PREOPERATIVE PERIOD; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANGE OF MOTION; SEX DIFFERENCE; INTERVERTEBRAL DISC DISPLACEMENT; INTERVERTEBRAL DISK; JOINT CHARACTERISTICS AND FUNCTIONS; MIDDLE AGED; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PHYSIOLOGY; RADIOGRAPHY; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SPONDYLOSIS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

ADULT; AGED; ARTHROPLASTY, REPLACEMENT; CERVICAL VERTEBRAE; FEMALE; HUMANS; INTERVERTEBRAL DISK; INTERVERTEBRAL DISK DISPLACEMENT; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; RANGE OF MOTION, ARTICULAR; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SPONDYLOSIS; TREATMENT OUTCOME; INTERVERTEBRAL DISC; INTERVERTEBRAL DISC DISPLACEMENT;

EID: 77955473716     PISSN: 15299430     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2010.04.027     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. S.W. Kim, M. Limson, and S.B. Kim et al. Comparison of radiographic changes after ACDF versus Bryan disc arthroplasty in single and bi-level cases Eur Spine J 18 2009 218 231
2. J. Goffin, A. Casey, and P. Kehr et al. Cervical motion segment replacement Eur Spine J 11 Suppl 2 2002 S92 S97
3. J. Goffin, F. Van Calenbergh, and J. Van Loon et al. Intermediate follow up after treatment of degenerative disc disease with the Bryan cervical disc prosthesis: single level and bi-level Spine 28 2003 2673 2678
4. W. Sears, N. Duggak, and L. Sekhon et al. Segmental malalignment with the Bryan cervical disc prosthesis - contributing factors J Spinal Disord Tech 20 2007 111 117
5. S. Yi, H.C. Shin, and K.N. Kim et al. Modified techniques to prevent sagittal imbalance after cervical arthroplasty Spine 32 2007 1986 1991
6. F. Galbusera, C. Bellini, and M. Brayda-Bruno et al. Biomechanical studies on cervical disc arthroplasty: a literature review Clin Biomech 23 2008 1095 1104
7. C.S. Shim, S.H. Lee, and H.J. Park et al. Early clinical and radiologic outcomes of cervical arthroplasty with Bryan cervical disc prosthesis J Spinal Disord Tech 19 2006 465 470
8. D.H. Yoon, S. Yi, and H.C. Shin et al. Clinical and radiological results following cervical arthroplasty Acta Neurochir (Wein) 148 2006 943 950
9. D. Rabin, R. Bertagnoli, and N. Wharton et al. Sagittal balance influences range of motion: an in vivo study with ProDisc-C Spine J 9 2009 129 133
10. G.E. Pickett, J.P. Rouleau, and N. Duggal Kinematic analysis of the cervical spine following implantation of an artificial cervical disc Spine 30 2005 1949 1954
11. U.K. Chang, D.H. Kim, and M.C. Lee et al. Range of motion change after cervical arthroplasty with ProDisc-C and prestige artificial discs compared with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion J Neurosurg Spine 7 2007 40 46
12. N. Bogduk, and S. Mercer Biomechanics of the cervical spine. I: normal kinematics Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 15 2000 633 648
13. R.C. Huang, P. Tropiano, and T. Marnay et al. Range of motion and adjacent level degeneration after lumbar total disc replacement Spine J 6 2006 242 247
14. J. Jaramillo-de la Torre, J. Grauer, and J. Yue Update on cervical disc arthroplasty: where are we and where are we going? Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 1 2008 124 130
15. F. Liu, J. Cheng, and R. Komistek et al. In vivo evaluation of dynamic characteristics of the normal, fused, and disc replacement pines Spine 32 2007 2578 2584