[Influence of disc prosthesis position on segmental motion in the lumbar spine].

AIM OF THE STUDY Total disc arthroplasty is reported to maintain segmental motion. From finite element studies a rather posterior and central implantation of the prosthesis is recommended. However, there is yet no in vitro study with cadaveric specimens investigating the topic of implant positioning. METHODS Ten human lumbar spines were subjected to biomechanical testing. Flexion/extension and side-bending moments were applied from 2.5-7.5 Nm on a spine load simulator. First, the intact specimens were tested in 3 load cycles while motion was monitored with regard to the facet joints under different loads by an ultrasound-based system. An unconstrained total disc prosthesis was then implanted in a central position and the different load cycles were repeated. Finally the implant was positioned in a decentral position with an average offset of 6.2 mm for repetitive data acquisition. RESULTS Comparison of the facet joint motion in central and eccentric prosthesis positions resulted in the following averaged differences. During flexion of the lumbar spine an average difference of the reference point excursions of 0.38 mm was recorded on the ipsilateral facet joint with reference to the decentral position. For extension, the difference was 0.33 mm on average, for right side bending a difference of 0.63 mm was recorded while left side bending resulted in an average difference of 0.24 mm. The deviation of the reference markers on the contralateral facet joint showed the following average differences: for flexion 0.23 mm and for extension 0.54 mm, respectively. For side bending right/left the differences amounted to 0.18 mm and 0.39 mm. With regard to segmental motion there was no statistically significant difference for both the ipsilateral (p = 0.0564) and the contralateral (p = 0.2593) reference marker. CONCLUSIONS The comparison of the segmental motion after central and decentral implantation of a lumbar total disc prosthesis reveals differences that have, nevertheless, no statistical significance. However, for clinical use it is recommended to strive for a central position of the implant.