Facet joint biomechanics at the treated and adjacent levels after total disc replacement

Spine

Volumn 36, Issue 1, 2011, Pages

  Botolin, Sergiu ^a   Puttlitz, Christian ^b   Baldini, Todd ^a   Petrella, Anthony ^b   Burger, Evalina ^a   Abjornson, Celeste ^c   Patel, Vikas ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO   (United States)

^b Veterinary Dentistry and Oral Surgery   (United States)

^c Johnson Johnson Company   (United States)

Author keywords

facet force; Facet joint biomechanics; intact spine; total disc replacement

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BIOMECHANICS; CADAVER; FEMALE; FORCE; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; INTERVERTEBRAL DISK; JOINT FUNCTION; LUMBAR SPINE; MALE; PRESSURE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; ROTATION; SPINE SURGERY;

AGED; BIOMECHANICS; CADAVER; DISKECTOMY; FEMALE; HUMANS; INTERVERTEBRAL DISK; LUMBAR VERTEBRAE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PRESSURE; RANGE OF MOTION, ARTICULAR; ROTATION; STRESS, MECHANICAL; ZYGAPOPHYSEAL JOINT;

EID: 78751572662     PISSN: 03622436     EISSN: 15281159     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181d2d071     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Frymoyer JW. Lumbar disk disease: epidemiology. Instr Course Lect 1992;41:217-23.
2. Miller JA, Schmatz C, Schultz AB. Lumbar disc degeneration: correlation with age, sex, and spine level in 600 autopsy specimens. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1988;13:173-8.
3. Luoma K, Riihimaki H, Luukkonen R, et al. Low back pain in relation to lumbar disc degeneration. Spine (Pbila Pa 1976) 2000;25:487-92.
4. Huang RC, Tropiano P, Marnay T, et al. Range of motion and adjacent level degeneration after lumbar total disc replacement. Spine J 2006;6:242-7.
5. Rohlmann A, Mann A, Zander T, et al. Effect of an artificial disc on lumbar spine biomechanics: a probabilistic fi nite element study. Eur Spine J 2009;18:89-97.
6. Rundell SA, Auerbach JD, Balderston RA, et al. Total disc replacement positioning affects facet contact forces and vertebral body strains. Spine (Pbila Pa 1976) 2008;33:2510-7.
7. Chen SH, Zhong ZC, Chen CS, et al. Biomechanical comparison between lumbar disc arthroplasty and fusion. Med Eng Phys 2009;31:244-53.
8. McAfee PC, Cunningham BW, Hayes V, et al. Biomechanical analysis of rotational motions after disc arthroplasty: implications for patients with adult deformities. Spine (Pbila Pa 1976) 2006;31 (suppl 19):S152-60.
9. Rousseau MA, Bradford DS, Bertagnoli R, et al. Disc arthroplasty design influences intervertebral kinematics and facet forces. Spine J 2006;6:258-66.
10. Bach JM, Hull ML. A new load application system for in vitro study of ligamentous injuries to the human knee joint. J Biomech Eng 1995;117:373-82.
11. Rahm MD, Hall BB. Adjacent-segment degeneration after lumbar fusion with instrumentation: a retrospective study. J Spinal Disord 1996-9:392-400.
12. van Ooij A, Oner FC, Verbout AJ. Complications of artificial disc replacement: a report of 27 patients with the SB Charite disc. J Spinal Disord Tech 2003;16:369-83.
13. Shim CS, Lee SH, Shin HD, et al. CHARITE versus ProDisc: a comparative study of a minimum 3-year follow-up. Spine (Pbila Pa 1976) 2007;32:1012-8.
14. Zigler JE. Lumbar spine arthroplasty using the ProDisc II. Spine J 2004;4(suppl 6):260S-7S.
15. Siepe CJ, Mayer HM, Wiechert K, et al. Clinical results of total lumbar discreplacement with ProDisc II: three-year results for different indications. Spine (Pbila Pa 1976) 2006;31:1923-32.
16. Zander T, Rohlmann A, Bergmann G. Influence of different artifi - cial disc kinematics on spine biomechanics. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 2009;24:135-42.
17. 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 (Pbila Pa 1976) 2001;26:E122-9.
18. Siepe CJ, Mayer HM, Heinz-Leisenheimer M, et al. Total lumbar disc replacement: different results for different levels. Spine (Pbila Pa 1976) 2007;32:782-90.
19. Krismer M, Haid C, Rabl W. The contribution of anulus fi bers to torque resistance. Spine (Pbila Pa 1976) 1996; 21:2551-7.