Kinematics of cervical total disc replacement adjacent to a two-level, straight versus lordotic fusion

Spine

Volumn 36, Issue 17, 2011, Pages 1359-1366

  Martin, Shelden ^a   Ghanayem, Alexander J ^a,b   Tzermiadianos, Michael N ^a,b   Voronov, Leonard I ^a,b   Havey, Robert M ^a,b   Renner, Susan M ^b   Carandang, Gerard ^b   Abjornson, Celeste ^c   Patwardhan, Avinash G ^a,b  

^a LOYOLA UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b HINES VA HOSPITAL   (United States)

^c Synthes Spine   (United States)

Author keywords

Cervical spine; fusion; spine biomechanics; total disc replacement

Indexed keywords

ARTHROPLASTY; ARTICLE; CADAVER; CERVICAL SPINE; CERVICAL TOTAL DISC REPLACEMENT; EXTERNAL FIXATOR; FLEXOR REFLEX; HUMAN; KINEMATICS; LORDOSIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANGE OF MOTION; SPINE FUSION; SPINE MOBILITY; SPINE SURGERY;

AGED; BIOMECHANICS; CERVICAL VERTEBRAE; FEMALE; HUMANS; LORDOSIS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; RANGE OF MOTION, ARTICULAR; SPINAL FUSION; TOTAL DISC REPLACEMENT;

EID: 80051544716     PISSN: 03622436     EISSN: 15281159     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e318222d4ad     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Abraham DJ, Herkowitz HN. Indications and trends in use in cervi-cal spinal fusions. Orthop Clin North Am 29: 731-44.
2. Emery SE, Bohlman HH, Bolesta MJ, et al. Anterior cervical de-compression and arthrodesis for the treatment of cervical spondy-lotic myelopathy. Two to seventeen-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1998; 80: 941-51. (Pubitemid 28355664)
3. Gore DR, Sepic DB. Anterior discectomy and fusion for painful cer-vical disc disease. A report of 50 patients with an average follow-up of 21 years. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1998; 23: 2047-51. (Pubitemid 28485117)
4. Kaiser MG, Haid RW Jr. Anterior cervical plating enhances arthrodesis after discectomy and fusion with cortical allograft. Neurosurgery 2002; 50: 229-36. (Pubitemid 41672579)
5. Yue WM, Brodner W. Long-term results after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with allograft and plating: a 5-to 11-year radiologic and clinical follow-up study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2005; 30: 2138-44. (Pubitemid 41429192)
6. Eck JC, Humphreys SC, Lim TH, et al. Biomechanical study on the effect of cervical spine fusion on adjacent\level intradiscal pressure and segmental motion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2002; 27: 2431-4. (Pubitemid 35346149)
7. Eck JC, Humphreys SC. Adjacent-segment degeneration after lum-bar fusion: a review of clinical, biomechanical, and radiologic stud-ies. Am J Orthop 1999; 28: 336-40.
8. Fuller DA, Kirkpatrick JS. A kinematic study of the cervical spine before and after segmental arthrodesis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1998; 23: 1649-56. (Pubitemid 28433863)
9. Ishihara H, Kanamori M, Kawaguchi Y, et al. Adjacent segment disease after cervical interbody fusion. Spine J 2004; 4: 624-8. (Pubitemid 39497281)
10. Matsunaga S, Kabayama S, Yamamoto T, et al. Strain on intervet-erbral discs after anterior cervical decompression and fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1999; 24: 670-5. (Pubitemid 29162910)
11. Wigfield C, Gill S. Infl uence of an artifi cial cervical joint com-pared with fusion on adjacent-level motion in the treatment of degenerative cervical disc disease. J Neurosurg (Spine 1) 2002; 96: 17-21. (Pubitemid 34226534)
12. Goffin J, Geusens E. Long-term follow-up after interbody fusion of the cervical spine. J Spinal Disord Tech 2004; 17: 79-85.
13. Hilibrand AS, Carlson GD, Palumbo MA, et al. Radiculopathy and myelopathy at segments adjacent to the site of a previous anterior cervical arthrodesis. J Bone Jt Surg 1999; 81: 519-28. (Pubitemid 29211592)
14. DiAngelo DJ, Roberston JT. Biomechanical testing of an artifi cial cervical joint and an anterior cervical plate. J Spinal Disorder Tech 2003; 16: 314-23.
15. DiAngelo DJ, Foley KT, Morrow BR, et al. In vitro biomechanics of cervical disc arthroplasty with the ProDisc-C total disc implant. Neurosurg Focus 2004; 17: 44-54.
16. Pickett GE, Rouleau JP. Kinematic analysis of the cervical spine fol-lowing implantation of an artifi cial cervical disc. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2005; 30: 1949-54. (Pubitemid 41292218)
17. Puttlitz CM, Rousseau MA. Intervertebral disc replacement maintains cervical spine kinematics. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2004: 29; 2809-14.
18. Bertagnoli R, Yue JJ, Pfeiffer F, et al. Early results after ProDisc-C cervical disc replacement. J Neurosurg (Spine 2) 2005; 2: 403-10.
19. Robertson JT, Papadopoulos SM, Traynelis VC. Assessment of adjacent-segment disease in patients treated with cervical fusion or arthroplasty: a prospective 2-year study. J Neurosurg (Spine) 2005; 3: 417-23.
20. Sekhon LH, Sears W, Duggal N. Cervical arthroplasty after previ-ous surgery: results of treating 24 discs in 15 patients. J Neurosurg Spine 2005; 3: 335-41.
21. Patwardhan AG, Havey RM, Ghanayem AJ, et al. Load-carrying capacity of the human cervical spine in compression is increased under a follower load. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2000; 25: 1548-54. (Pubitemid 30418470)
22. Panjabi MM. Hybrid multidirectional test method to evaluate spi-nal adjacent-level effects. Clin Biomech 2007; 22 (3): 257-65. (Pubitemid 46205018)
23. Moroney SP, Schultz AB, Miller JA. Analysis and measurement of neck loads. J Orthop Res 1988; 6: 713-20.
24. Dmitriev AE, Cunningham BW, Hu N, et al. Adjacent level intradiscal pressure and segmental kinematics following a cervical total disc arthroplasty: an in vitro human cadaveric model. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2005; 30: 1165-72. (Pubitemid 40695927)
25. Chang UK, Kim DH, Lee MC, et al. Range of motion change af-ter cervical arthroplasty with ProDisc-C and prestige artifi cial discs compared with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. J Neurosurg Spine 2007; 7: 40-6. (Pubitemid 47067738)