Cargando…

Does core mobility of lumbar total disc arthroplasty influence sagittal and frontal intervertebral displacement? Radiologic comparison with fixed-core prosthesis

BACKGROUND: An artificial disc prosthesis is thought to restore segmental motion in the lumbar spine. However, it is reported that disc prosthesis can increase the intervertebral translation (VT). The concept of the mobile-core prosthesis is to mimic the kinematic effects of the migration of the nat...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Delécrin, Joël, Allain, Jérôme, Beaurain, Jacques, Steib, Jean-Paul, Chataigner, Hervé, Aubourg, Lucie, Huppert, Jean, Ameil, Marc, Nguyen, Jean-Michel
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier, Inc. 2009
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4365600/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25802632
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esas.2009.09.001
_version_ 1782362248741650432
author Delécrin, Joël
Allain, Jérôme
Beaurain, Jacques
Steib, Jean-Paul
Chataigner, Hervé
Aubourg, Lucie
Huppert, Jean
Ameil, Marc
Nguyen, Jean-Michel
author_facet Delécrin, Joël
Allain, Jérôme
Beaurain, Jacques
Steib, Jean-Paul
Chataigner, Hervé
Aubourg, Lucie
Huppert, Jean
Ameil, Marc
Nguyen, Jean-Michel
author_sort Delécrin, Joël
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: An artificial disc prosthesis is thought to restore segmental motion in the lumbar spine. However, it is reported that disc prosthesis can increase the intervertebral translation (VT). The concept of the mobile-core prosthesis is to mimic the kinematic effects of the migration of the natural nucleus and therefore core mobility should minimize the VT. This study explored the hypothesis that core translation should influence VT and that a mobile core prosthesis may facilitate physiological motion. METHODS: Vertebral translation (measured with a new method presented here), core translation, range of motion (ROM), and distribution of flexion-extension were measured on flexion-extension, neutral standing, and lateral bending films in 89 patients (63 mobile-core [M]; 33 fixed-core [F]). RESULTS: At L4-5 levels the VT with M was lower than with F and similar to the VT of untreated levels. At L5-S1 levels the VT with M was lower than with F but was significantly different compared to untreated levels. At M levels a strong correlation was found between VT and core translation; the VT decreases as the core translation increases. At F levels the VT increases as the ROM increases. No significant difference was found between the ROM of untreated levels and levels implanted with either M or F. Regarding the mobility distribution with M and F we observed a deficit in extension at L5-S1 levels and a similar distribution at L4-5 levels compared to untreated levels. CONCLUSION: The intervertebral mobility was different between M and F. The M at L4-5 levels succeeded to replicate mobility similar to L4-5 untreated levels. The M at L5-S1 succeeded in ROM, but failed regarding VT and mobility distribution. Nevertheless M minimized VT at L5-S1 levels. The F increased VT at both L4-5 and L5-S1. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study validates the concept that the core translation of an artificial lumbar disc prosthesis minimizes the VT.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4365600
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2009
publisher Elsevier, Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-43656002015-03-23 Does core mobility of lumbar total disc arthroplasty influence sagittal and frontal intervertebral displacement? Radiologic comparison with fixed-core prosthesis Delécrin, Joël Allain, Jérôme Beaurain, Jacques Steib, Jean-Paul Chataigner, Hervé Aubourg, Lucie Huppert, Jean Ameil, Marc Nguyen, Jean-Michel SAS J Lumbar Arthroplasty BACKGROUND: An artificial disc prosthesis is thought to restore segmental motion in the lumbar spine. However, it is reported that disc prosthesis can increase the intervertebral translation (VT). The concept of the mobile-core prosthesis is to mimic the kinematic effects of the migration of the natural nucleus and therefore core mobility should minimize the VT. This study explored the hypothesis that core translation should influence VT and that a mobile core prosthesis may facilitate physiological motion. METHODS: Vertebral translation (measured with a new method presented here), core translation, range of motion (ROM), and distribution of flexion-extension were measured on flexion-extension, neutral standing, and lateral bending films in 89 patients (63 mobile-core [M]; 33 fixed-core [F]). RESULTS: At L4-5 levels the VT with M was lower than with F and similar to the VT of untreated levels. At L5-S1 levels the VT with M was lower than with F but was significantly different compared to untreated levels. At M levels a strong correlation was found between VT and core translation; the VT decreases as the core translation increases. At F levels the VT increases as the ROM increases. No significant difference was found between the ROM of untreated levels and levels implanted with either M or F. Regarding the mobility distribution with M and F we observed a deficit in extension at L5-S1 levels and a similar distribution at L4-5 levels compared to untreated levels. CONCLUSION: The intervertebral mobility was different between M and F. The M at L4-5 levels succeeded to replicate mobility similar to L4-5 untreated levels. The M at L5-S1 succeeded in ROM, but failed regarding VT and mobility distribution. Nevertheless M minimized VT at L5-S1 levels. The F increased VT at both L4-5 and L5-S1. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study validates the concept that the core translation of an artificial lumbar disc prosthesis minimizes the VT. Elsevier, Inc. 2009-09-01 /pmc/articles/PMC4365600/ /pubmed/25802632 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esas.2009.09.001 Text en © 2009 SAS - The International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 Unported License, permitting all non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Lumbar Arthroplasty
Delécrin, Joël
Allain, Jérôme
Beaurain, Jacques
Steib, Jean-Paul
Chataigner, Hervé
Aubourg, Lucie
Huppert, Jean
Ameil, Marc
Nguyen, Jean-Michel
Does core mobility of lumbar total disc arthroplasty influence sagittal and frontal intervertebral displacement? Radiologic comparison with fixed-core prosthesis
title Does core mobility of lumbar total disc arthroplasty influence sagittal and frontal intervertebral displacement? Radiologic comparison with fixed-core prosthesis
title_full Does core mobility of lumbar total disc arthroplasty influence sagittal and frontal intervertebral displacement? Radiologic comparison with fixed-core prosthesis
title_fullStr Does core mobility of lumbar total disc arthroplasty influence sagittal and frontal intervertebral displacement? Radiologic comparison with fixed-core prosthesis
title_full_unstemmed Does core mobility of lumbar total disc arthroplasty influence sagittal and frontal intervertebral displacement? Radiologic comparison with fixed-core prosthesis
title_short Does core mobility of lumbar total disc arthroplasty influence sagittal and frontal intervertebral displacement? Radiologic comparison with fixed-core prosthesis
title_sort does core mobility of lumbar total disc arthroplasty influence sagittal and frontal intervertebral displacement? radiologic comparison with fixed-core prosthesis
topic Lumbar Arthroplasty
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4365600/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25802632
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esas.2009.09.001
work_keys_str_mv AT delecrinjoel doescoremobilityoflumbartotaldiscarthroplastyinfluencesagittalandfrontalintervertebraldisplacementradiologiccomparisonwithfixedcoreprosthesis
AT allainjerome doescoremobilityoflumbartotaldiscarthroplastyinfluencesagittalandfrontalintervertebraldisplacementradiologiccomparisonwithfixedcoreprosthesis
AT beaurainjacques doescoremobilityoflumbartotaldiscarthroplastyinfluencesagittalandfrontalintervertebraldisplacementradiologiccomparisonwithfixedcoreprosthesis
AT steibjeanpaul doescoremobilityoflumbartotaldiscarthroplastyinfluencesagittalandfrontalintervertebraldisplacementradiologiccomparisonwithfixedcoreprosthesis
AT chataignerherve doescoremobilityoflumbartotaldiscarthroplastyinfluencesagittalandfrontalintervertebraldisplacementradiologiccomparisonwithfixedcoreprosthesis
AT aubourglucie doescoremobilityoflumbartotaldiscarthroplastyinfluencesagittalandfrontalintervertebraldisplacementradiologiccomparisonwithfixedcoreprosthesis
AT huppertjean doescoremobilityoflumbartotaldiscarthroplastyinfluencesagittalandfrontalintervertebraldisplacementradiologiccomparisonwithfixedcoreprosthesis
AT ameilmarc doescoremobilityoflumbartotaldiscarthroplastyinfluencesagittalandfrontalintervertebraldisplacementradiologiccomparisonwithfixedcoreprosthesis
AT nguyenjeanmichel doescoremobilityoflumbartotaldiscarthroplastyinfluencesagittalandfrontalintervertebraldisplacementradiologiccomparisonwithfixedcoreprosthesis