The factors that influence the postoperative segmental range of motion after cervical artificial disc replacement

Spine Journal

Volumn 10, Issue 8, 2010, Pages 689-696

  Kang, Kyung Chung ^a   Lee, Chong Suh ^a   Han, Jeong Hoon ^a   Chung, Sung Soo ^a  

^a Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine   (South Korea)

Author keywords

Cervical artificial disc replacement; Influencing factors; Range of motion

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CERVICAL SPINE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; PAIN ASSESSMENT; POSTOPERATIVE PERIOD; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANGE OF MOTION; SPINAL CORD SURGERY; VISUAL ANALOG SCALE; ARTHROPLASTY; INTERVERTEBRAL DISC DISPLACEMENT; INTERVERTEBRAL DISK; JOINT CHARACTERISTICS AND FUNCTIONS; MIDDLE AGED; NECK PAIN; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PHYSIOLOGY; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SPINE FUSION; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

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

EID: 77955473717     PISSN: 15299430     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2010.04.016     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. D.A. Shin, S. Yi, and H. Yoon do et al. Artificial disc replacement combined with fusion versus two-level fusion in cervical two-level disc disease Spine 34 2009 1153 1159 discussion 60-1
2. K. Rohl, and F. Rohrich Artificial disc versus spinal fusion in the treatment of cervical spine degenerations in tetraplegics: a comparison of clinical results Spinal Cord 47 2009 705 708
3. S.W. Kim, M.A. 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
4. 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
5. R.C. Sasso, J.D. Smucker, R.J. Hacker, and J.G. Heller Artificial disc versus fusion: a prospective, randomized study with 2-year follow-up on 99 patients Spine 32 2007 2933 2940 discussion 41-2
6. S.A. Rundell, J.D. Auerbach, R.A. Balderston, and S.M. Kurtz Total disc replacement positioning affects facet contact forces and vertebral body strains Spine 33 2008 2510 2517
7. V. Palissery, R.C. Mulholland, and D.S. McNally The implications of stress patterns in the vertebral body under axial support of an artificial implant Med Eng Phys 31 2009 833 837
8. 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
9. D. Murrey, M. Janssen, and R. Delamarter et al. Results of the prospective, randomized, controlled multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study of the ProDisc-C total disc replacement versus anterior discectomy and fusion for the treatment of 1-level symptomatic cervical disc disease Spine J 9 2009 275 286
10. A.S. Hilibrand, G.D. Carlson, and M.A. Palumbo et al. Radiculopathy and myelopathy at segments adjacent to the site of a previous anterior cervical arthrodesis J Bone Joint Surg Am 81 1999 519 528
11. J.B. Park, Y.S. Cho, and K.D. Riew Development of adjacent-level ossification in patients with an anterior cervical plate J Bone Joint Surg Am 87 2005 558 563
12. B. Yaszay, J.A. Bendo, and J.A. Goldstein et al. Effect of intervertebral disc height on postoperative motion and outcomes after ProDisc-L lumbar disc replacement Spine 33 2008 508 512 discussion 13
13. C.J. Siepe, W. Hitzl, and P. Meschede et al. Interdependence between disc space height, range of motion and clinical outcome in total lumbar disc replacement Spine 34 2009 904 916
14. C.W. Peng, M. Quirnoa, and J.A. Bendo et al. Effect of intervertebral disc height on postoperative motion and clinical outcomes after Prodisc-C cervical disc replacement Spine J 9 2009 551 555
15. M.R. Lim, F.P. Girardi, and K. Zhang et al. Measurement of total disc replacement radiographic range of motion: a comparison of two techniques J Spinal Disord Tech 18 2005 252 256
16. M.A. Hayes, T.C. Howard, C.R. Gruel, and J.A. Kopta Roentgenographic evaluation of lumbar spine flexion-extension in asymptomatic individuals Spine 14 1989 327 331
17. A. Fujiwara, K. Tamai, and H.S. An et al. Orientation and osteoarthritis of the lumbar facet joint Clin Orthop Relat Res 385 2001 88 94
18. A. Fujiwara, K. Tamai, and M. Yamato et al. The relationship between facet joint osteoarthritis and disc degeneration of the lumbar spine: an MRI study Eur Spine J 8 1999 396 401
19. P.C. McAfee, B.W. Cunningham, and J. Devine et al. Classification of heterotopic ossification (HO) in artificial disk replacement J Spinal Disord Tech 16 2003 384 389
20. J.D. Auerbach, K.J. Jones, and C.I. Fras et al. The prevalence of indications and contraindications to cervical total disc replacement Spine J 8 2008 711 716
21. C. Mehren, P. Suchomel, and F. Grochulla et al. Heterotopic ossification in total cervical artificial disc replacement Spine 31 2006 2802 2806
22. C. Leung, A.T. Casey, and J. Goffin et al. Clinical significance of heterotopic ossification in cervical disc replacement: a prospective multicenter clinical trial Neurosurgery 57 2005 759 763 discussion 759-63
23. R.H. Bartels, and R. Donk Fusion around cervical disc prosthesis: case report Neurosurgery 57 2005 E194 discussion E
24. J. Liu, N.A. Ebraheim, and S.P. Haman et al. How the increase of the cervical disc space height affects the facet joint: an anatomy study Spine 31 2006 E350 E354