Winter 2008 @bullet Volume 02 @bullet Issue 01 Winter 2008 @bullet Volume 02 @bullet Issue 01 Twelve-month Follow-up of Lumbar Spine Range of Motion following Intervertebral Disc Replacement Using Radiostereometric Analysis

Background Many clinical studies have focused on clinical pain scores and less on kinematics following intervertebral disc replacement. Although flexion and extension of the motion segment can be measured on lateral X-rays, measuring lateral bending and axial rotation of the device is extremely difficult on plain radiography. This study was designed to measure, using radiostereometric analysis (RSA), the postoperative range of motion of the spinal segment following placement of ProDisc-L interbody device (Synthes Spine, West Chester, Pennsylvania). Methods Twelve patients (15 discs) with a ProDisc-L intervertebral disc replacement were followed postoperatively at 1.5, 3, 6, and 12 months with both clinical and RSA examinations. For follow-up RSA analysis, 4 to 5 tantalum beads were inserted into the vertebrae adjacent to the surgical level during surgery. Standing biplanar films were collected during follow-up, and the ranges of motion (ROM) (sagittal and coronal bending) of the adjacent vertebrae were determined by RSA. Results Based on the clinical surveys, this group of patients had similar outcomes compared to larger clinical populations. The flexion/extension ROM with the disc replacement averaged 2.5° at 6 weeks and increased over the follow-up period to 6.6° at 6 months. The lateral bending ROM with the disc replacement remained consistent over the 4 time points and averaged 3.0°. The motion at the level of the L4-5 vertebrae following disc replacement was greater across all time points than the motion at the L5-S1 level for both sagittal (5.9° versus 2.1°) and coronal (4.2° versus 0.6°) bending. Conclusions In this study, the amount of RSA-measured segmental flexion/extension ROM for those with disc replacement was similar to other studies using plain radiography. In lateral bending, the amount of motion with disc replacement was less than the typical 6°–16° reported for normal ROM. Clinical Relevance This is the first published study evaluating the in vivo kinematics of artificial disc replacement using RSA.

[1]  Rolando Garcia,et al.  A Prospective, Randomized, Multicenter Food and Drug Administration Investigational Device Exemptions Study of Lumbar Total Disc Replacement With the CHARITÉ™ Artificial Disc Versus Lumbar Fusion: Part I: Evaluation of Clinical Outcomes , 2005, Spine.

[2]  Carsten Perka,et al.  Charité total disc replacement—clinical and radiographical results after an average follow-up of 17 years , 2006, European Spine Journal.

[3]  Markku Heliövaara,et al.  Surgical or Nonoperative Treatment for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis?: A Randomized Controlled Trial , 2007, Spine.

[4]  S. Eiskjær,et al.  1997 Volvo Award Winner in Clinical Studies: The Effect of Pedicle Screw Instrumentation on Functional Outcome and Fusion Rates in Posterolateral Lumbar Spinal Fusion: A Prospective, Randomized Clinical Study , 1997, Spine.

[5]  E. Sariali,et al.  In vivo study of the kinematics in axial rotation of the lumbar spine after total intervertebral disc replacement: long-term results: a 10–14 years follow up evaluation , 2006, European Spine Journal.

[6]  Thomas J Errico,et al.  Lumbar disc arthroplasty. , 2005, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[7]  B. Strömqvist,et al.  A method to evaluate the in vivo behaviour of lumbar spine implants , 2000, European Spine Journal.

[8]  Hyun Bae,et al.  ProDisc Artificial Total Lumbar Disc Replacement: Introduction and Early Results From the United States Clinical Trial , 2003, Spine.

[9]  W. Skalli,et al.  Total disc arthroplasty: consequences for sagittal balance and lumbar spine movement , 2007, European Spine Journal.

[10]  Manohar M. Panjabi,et al.  Clinical Biomechanics of the Spine , 1978 .

[11]  Jeffrey C. Wang,et al.  L5–S1 Segment Survivorship and Clinical Outcome Analysis After L4–L5 Isolated Fusion , 2003, Spine.

[12]  P. Curtiss,et al.  THE ORTHOPAEDIC RESEARCH SOCIETY , 1960 .

[13]  Moe R. Lim,et al.  Measurement Error of Lumbar Total Disc Replacement Range of Motion , 2006, Spine.

[14]  Patrick Tropiano,et al.  Correlation Between Range of Motion and Outcome After Lumbar Total Disc Replacement: 8.6-Year Follow-up , 2005, Spine.

[15]  Moe R. Lim,et al.  Measurement of Total Disc Replacement Radiographic Range of Motion: A Comparison of Two Techniques , 2005, Journal of spinal disorders & techniques.

[16]  J. Zigler Clinical Results with ProDisc: European Experience and U.S. Investigation Device Exemption Study , 2003, Spine.

[17]  S. Madan,et al.  Comparison of instrumented anterior interbody fusion with instrumented circumferential lumbar fusion , 2003, European Spine Journal.

[18]  Jeffrey C. Wang,et al.  Lumbar disc arthroplasty. , 2005, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[19]  A. Hilibrand,et al.  Adjacent segment degeneration and adjacent segment disease: the consequences of spinal fusion? , 2004, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[20]  P. Huddleston Results of the Prospective, Randomized, Multicenter Food and Drug Administration Investigational Device Exemption Study of the ProDisc®-L Total Disc Replacement Versus Circumferential Fusion for the Treatment of 1-Level Degenerative Disc Disease , 2008 .

[21]  E. Valstar,et al.  Does Bioresorbable Cage Material Influence Segment Stability in Spinal Interbody Fusion? , 2006, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[22]  R. Delamarter,et al.  Clinical results of ProDisc-II lumbar total disc replacement: report from the United States clinical trial. , 2005, The Orthopedic clinics of North America.

[23]  T. Takebayashi,et al.  Adjacent segment stenosis after lumbar fusion requiring second operation , 2005, Journal of orthopaedic science : official journal of the Japanese Orthopaedic Association.

[24]  P. Axelsson,et al.  Intervertebral mobility in the progressive degenerative process. A radiostereometric analysis , 2004, European Spine Journal.

[25]  R. Schmidt,et al.  Reliability of motion measurements after total disc replacement: the spike and the fin method , 2006, European Spine Journal.

[26]  U. Fernström Arthroplasty with intercorporal endoprothesis in herniated disc and in painful disc. , 1966, Acta chirurgica Scandinavica. Supplementum.