The effect of range of motion after single-level discover cervical artificial disk replacement

Journal of Spinal Disorders and Techniques

Volumn 26, Issue 5, 2013, Pages

  Chen, Yu ^a   Yuan, Wen ^a   Wu, Xiaodong ^a   Chen, Huajiang ^a   Wang, Xinwei ^a   Yang, Lili ^a   He, Hailong ^a   Liu, Yang ^a   Tsai, Nicholas ^b   Peng, Yucheng ^a   Gu, Shiyi ^a   Sun, Qizhi ^a  

^a SECOND MILITARY MEDICAL UNIVERSITY   (China)

^b CANBERRA HOSPITAL   (Australia)

Author keywords

Cervical artificial disk replacement; Cervical spondylosis; Discover; Range of motion; Single level

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CERVICAL ARTIFICIAL DISK REPLACEMENT; CERVICAL SPINE RADIOGRAPHY; CERVICAL SPONDYLOSIS; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NECK; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANGE OF MOTION; SPINAL CORD SURGERY; VISUAL ANALOG SCALE;

BIOMECHANICAL PHENOMENA; CERVICAL VERTEBRAE; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; MALE; RANGE OF MOTION, ARTICULAR; TOTAL DISC REPLACEMENT; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84880079239     PISSN: 15360652     EISSN: 15392465     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/BSD.0b013e31828bc02f     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. Du J, Li M, Liu H, et al. Early follow-up outcomes after treatment of degenerative disc disease with the discover cervical disc prosthesis. Spine J. 2011;11: 281-289.
2. Greiner-Perth R, Allam Y, Silbermann J, et al. First experience and preliminary clinical results with the cervical disc replacement DISCOVER. Z Orthop Unfall. 2009;147: 582-587.
3. DiAngelo DJ, Roberston JT, Metcalf NH, et al. Biomechanical testing of an artificial cervical joint and an anterior cervical plate. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2003;16: 314-324.
4. Wiffield CC, Skrzypiec D, Jackowski A, et al. Internal stress distribution in cervical intervertebral discs: the influence of an artificial cervical joint and simulated anterior interbody fusion. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2003;16: 441-449.
5. Rheault W, Albright B, Beyers C, et al. Intertester reliability of the cervical range of motion device. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1992;15: 147-150.
6. Capuano-Pucci D, Rheault W, Aukai J, et al. Intratester and intertester reliability of the cervical range of motion device. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1991;72: 338-340.
7. White AA, Panjabi MM. The basic kinematics of the human spine: a review of past and current knowledge. Spine. 1978;3: 12-20. (Pubitemid 8316244)
8. Jawahar Ajay, Cavanaugh DA, Kerr EJ III, et al. Total disc arthroplasty does not affect the incidence of adjacent segment degeneration in cervical spine: results of 93 patients in three prospective randomized clinical trials. Spine J. 2010;10: 1043-1048.
9. Ahn PG, Kim KN, Moon SW, et al. Changes in cervical range of motion and sagittal alignment in early and late phases after total disc replacement: radiographic follow-up exceeding 2 years. J Neurosurg Spine. 2009;11: 688-695.
10. Stulík J, Kryl J, Sebesta P, et al. ProDisc-C mobile replacement of an intervertebral disc. A prospective mono-centric two-year study. Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cech. 2008;75: 253-261.
11. Coric D, Nunley PD, Guyer RD, et al. Prospective, randomized, multicenter study of cervical arthroplasty: 269 patients from the Kineflex/C artificial disc investigational device exemption study with a minimum 2-year follow-up: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine. 2011;15: 348-358.
12. Peng CW, Yue WM, Basit A, et al. Intermediate results of the prestige LP cervical disc replacement: clinical and radiological analysis with minimum two-year follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011;36:E105-E111.
13. Kang KC, Lee CS, Han JH, et al. The factors that influence the postoperative segmental range of motion after cervical artificial disc replacement. Spine J. 2010;10: 689-696.