Does sagittal position of the CTDR-related centre of rotation influence functional outcome? Prospective 2-year follow-up analysis
Language English Country Germany Media print-electronic
Document type Journal Article, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
- MeSH
- Total Disc Replacement MeSH
- Adult MeSH
- Ossification, Heterotopic etiology MeSH
- Cervical Vertebrae diagnostic imaging surgery MeSH
- Middle Aged MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Lordosis diagnostic imaging MeSH
- Intervertebral Disc diagnostic imaging surgery MeSH
- Follow-Up Studies MeSH
- Prospective Studies MeSH
- Radiography MeSH
- Severity of Illness Index MeSH
- Check Tag
- Adult MeSH
- Middle Aged MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Male MeSH
- Female MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't MeSH
PURPOSE: Recent studies describe significant rates of heterotopic ossification (HO) after cervical total disc replacement (CTDR). Little is known about the reasons, and one aspect that requires further in vivo investigation is the biomechanical alteration after CTDR and the role of the implant-related centre of rotation (CORi) in particular. The role of the sagittal position of the CORi on functional outcome in two versions of a semi-constrained disc prosthesis with sagittally different CORi is the topic of this study. METHODS: Patients were candidates for single-level CTDR between C3 and C7 who suffered from CDDD and received a standard or flat version of activ C™ (Aesculap AG, Tuttlingen). Clinical and radiographic assessments were determined preoperatively, intraoperatively, at discharge and again at 6 weeks, 6 months, 1 and 2 years. Radiographic examinations were performed independently using specialized quantitative motion analysis software. RESULTS: Clinical outcome improved significantly regarding NDI as well as VAS on neck and arm pain with no differences in mean improvement by study group. Segmental angle measures show a significantly better lordotic alignment for both groups after surgery, but the degree of correction achieved is higher in the flat group. Correlation analysis proves that the more anterior the CORi is positioned, the higher the lordotic correction is achieved (Pearson rho -0.385). Segmental ROM decreased in the standard group but was maintained for flat implants. At present, our data do not demonstrate a correlation between CORi and ROM at 2 years. Two years after surgery, severe HO grade III-IV was present in 31.6 % standard and 13.1 % flat cases with significant differences. Grouping according to HO severity showed comparable sagittal positions of CORi for flat implants but a more posterior position in the severe HO group for standard implants. CONCLUSIONS: Our results confirm the influence of CORi location on segmental alignment, kinematics and HO for a semi-constrained CTDR, but it also indicates a multifactorial process.
See more in PubMed
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012 May 15;37(11):943-52 PubMed
J Spinal Disord. 1995 Dec;8(6):500-8; discussion 499 PubMed
Neurosurgery. 2010 Jun;66(6):1153-60; discussion 1160 PubMed
Spine J. 2004 Nov-Dec;4(6 Suppl):315S-321S PubMed
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008 Jan 1;33(1):E6-9 PubMed
Chin Med J (Engl). 2010 Nov;123(21):2999-3002 PubMed
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2002 Nov 15;27(22):2431-4 PubMed
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011 Sep 21;93(18):1684-92 PubMed
Neurosurg Focus. 2004 Sep 15;17(3):E10 PubMed
Orthop Clin North Am. 2005 Jul;36(3):355-62 PubMed
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005 May 15;30(10):1165-72 PubMed
Spine J. 2007 Nov-Dec;7(6):654-8 PubMed
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2008 Nov;23(9):1095-104 PubMed
J Spinal Disord Tech. 2003 Aug;16(4):384-9 PubMed
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003 Dec 15;28(24):2673-8 PubMed
Spine J. 2009 Feb;9(2):128-33 PubMed
J Neurosurg Spine. 2005 Dec;3(6):417-23 PubMed
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1998 Oct 1;23(19):2047-51 PubMed
J Orthop Res. 1991 Nov;9(6):828-34 PubMed
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006 Nov 15;31(24):2802-6 PubMed
Neurosurgery. 2005 Oct;57(4):759-63; discussion 759-63 PubMed
Eur Spine J. 2001 Aug;10(4):320-4 PubMed
J Spinal Disord Tech. 2007 Apr;20(2):111-7 PubMed
Eur Spine J. 2011 Feb;20(2):177-84 PubMed
J Neurosurg Spine. 2012 Mar;16(3):216-28 PubMed
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1999 Apr;81(4):519-28 PubMed
J Spinal Disord Tech. 2003 Aug;16(4):314-23 PubMed
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1993 Sep;75(9):1298-307 PubMed
Eur Spine J. 2010 Feb;19(2):307-15 PubMed
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1993 Nov;18(15):2167-73 PubMed
J Neurosurg. 2004 Jan;100(1 Suppl Spine):2-6 PubMed
Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2006 Sep;148(9):943-50 PubMed
Spine J. 2009 Apr;9(4):275-86 PubMed
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005 Sep 1;30(17):1949-54 PubMed
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009 Jan 15;34(2):101-7 PubMed
Spine J. 2004 Nov-Dec;4(6 Suppl):209S-218S PubMed
Ann Surg. 1952 Dec;136(6):987-92 PubMed
Neurosurgery. 1999 Feb;44(2):379-84; discussion 384-5 PubMed
Eur Spine J. 2012 Dec;21(12):2550-7 PubMed
Eur Spine J. 2009 Jun;18(6):841-50 PubMed
Eur Spine J. 2013 Apr;22(4):747-58 PubMed
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1997 Jul 15;22(14):1574-9 PubMed
J Neurosurg Spine. 2007 Mar;6(3):198-209 PubMed
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004 Jun 1;29(11):E221-6 PubMed
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011 Mar 15;36(6):463-8 PubMed
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1994 Nov;76(11):1606-16 PubMed
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1958 Jun;40-A(3):607-24 PubMed
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 1991 May;6(2):111-7 PubMed
