The effect of implant size and device keel on vertebral compression properties in lumbar total disc replacement

Abstract Background Context Vertebral end plate support is necessary for successful lumbar total disc replacement (TDR) surgery. Failure to achieve anterior column support as a result of lumbar TDR device undersizing could lead to implant subsidence and fracture. Purpose The purpose of the study was...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The spine journal 2010-04, Vol.10 (4), p.333-340
Hauptverfasser: Auerbach, Joshua D., MD, Ballester, Carrie M., MSE, Hammond, Frank, MSE, Carine, Ehren T., BS, Balderston, Richard A., MD, Elliott, Dawn M., PhD
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Abstract Background Context Vertebral end plate support is necessary for successful lumbar total disc replacement (TDR) surgery. Failure to achieve anterior column support as a result of lumbar TDR device undersizing could lead to implant subsidence and fracture. Purpose The purpose of the study was to examine the compressive biomechanical behavior of the vertebral end plate with varying sizes of disc replacement implants. Study Design The study design comprises a biomechanical investigation using a human cadaveric lumbar spine model. Methods Fifty-six vertebrae with intact posterior elements were prepared from 13 fresh frozen lumbar spines. Peripheral quantitative computed tomography was performed to assess regional bone density. Vertebrae were potted and subjected to nondestructive compression testing with a small, medium, and large custom-made implants with the footplate geometry of the ProDisc-L TDR (Synthes Spine, West Chester, PA, USA) system and having no keel. Failure testing was performed using the ProDisc-L implant with an intact keel. Pressure sensor film was used to assess contact pressure and distribution. Results There was a linear correlation between percent coverage of the end plate and implant-end plate stiffness (p=.0001) and an inverse correlation with displacement (p=.01). The difference in implant-end plate stiffness between small-medium, medium-large, and small-large implants was 10.5% (p=.03), 10.2% (p=.02), and 19.6% (p
ISSN:1529-9430
1878-1632
DOI:10.1016/j.spinee.2010.01.008