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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |