The Spine Journal
Volume 9, Issue 2 , Pages 128-133 , February 2009

Sagittal balance influences range of motion: an in vivo study with the ProDisc-C

  • Doron Rabin, MD

      Affiliations

    • Division of Neurosurgery, London Health Sciences Center, London, Ontario N6A 5A5, Canada
    • ,
  • Rudolf Bertagnoli, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Spine Center, St. Elisabeth Klinikum, Straubing, Germany
    • ,
  • Nicholas Wharton, MS

      Affiliations

    • Medical Metrics, Inc., Houston, TX, USA
    • ,
  • Gwynedd E. Pickett, MD FRCS(C)

      Affiliations

    • Division of Neurosurgery, London Health Sciences Center, London, Ontario N6A 5A5, Canada
    • ,
  • Neil Duggal, MD FRCS(C)

      Affiliations

    • Division of Neurosurgery, London Health Sciences Center, London, Ontario N6A 5A5, Canada
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Division of Neurosurgery, London Health Sciences Center, University of Western Ontario, 339 Windermere Road, Room A10-314, London, ON N6A 5A5, Canada. Tel.: (519) 663-2926; fax: (519) 663-3982.

Received 10 July 2007 ,Accepted 3 January 2008.

References 

  1. Anderson PA, Sasso RC, Rouleau JP, Carlson CS, Goffin J. The Bryan Cervical Disc: wear properties and early clinical results. Spine J. 2004;4:303–309
  2. Bertagnoli R, Yue JJ, Pfeiffer F, et al. Early results after ProDisc-C cervical disc replacement. J Neurosurg Spine. 2005;2:403–410
  3. Duggal N, Pickett GE, Mitsis DK, Keller JL. Early clinical and biomechanical results following cervical arthroplasty. Neurosurg Focus. 2004;17:62–68
  4. Goffin J, Casey A, Kehr P, et al. Preliminary clinical experience with the Bryan Cervical Disc prosthesis. Neurosurgery. 2002;51:840–845
  5. Goffin J, Van Calenbergh V, et al. Intermediate follow-up after treatment of degenerative disc disease with the Bryan Cervical Disc prosthesis: single-level and bi-level. Spine. 2003;28:2673–2678
  6. Pickett GE, Mitsis DK, Sekhon LH, Sears WR, Duggal N. Effects of a cervical disc prosthesis on segmental and cervical spine alignment. Neurosurgical Focus. 2004;17:E5
  7. Pickett GE, Rouleau JP, Duggal N. Kinematic analysis of the cervical spine following implantation of an artificial cervical disc. Spine. 2005;30:1949–1954
  8. Pickett GE, Sekhon LH, Sears WR, Duggal N. Complications with cervical arthroplasty. J Neurosurg Spine. 2006;4:98–105
  9. Robertson JT, Papadopoulou SM, Traynelis VC. Assessment of adjacent segment disease in patients treated with cervical fusion or arthroplasty: a prospective 2-year study. J Neurosurgery Spine. 2005;3:417–423
  10. DiAngelo DJ, Foley KT, Morrow BR, et al. In vitro biomechanics of cervical disc arthroplasty with the ProDisc-C total disc implant. Neurosurg Focus. 2004;17:43–54
  11. Fong SY, DuPlessis SJ, Casha S, Hurlbert RJ. Design limitations of Bryan Disc arthroplasty. Spine J. 2006;6:233–241
  12. Troyanovich SJ, Stroink AR, Kattner KA, Doman WA, Gubina I. Does anterior plating maintain cervical lordosis versus conventional fusion techniques? A retrospective analysis of patients receiving single-level fusions. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2002;15:69–74
  13. Kwon B, Kim DH, Marvin A, Jenis LG. Outcomes following anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: the role of interbody disc height, angulation, and spinous process distance. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2005;18:304–308
  14. Katsuura A, Hukuda S, Saruhashi Y, Mori K. Kyphotic malalignment after anterior cervical fusion is one of the factors promoting the degenerative process in adjacent intervertebral levels. Eur Spine J. 2001;10:320–324

 FDA device/drug status: investigational/not approved (ProDisc-C).

 The author, RB, acknowledges a financial relationship (consultant and lecturer for Synthes Spine) that may indirectly relate to the subject of this research.

PII: S1529-9430(08)00051-X

doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2008.01.009

The Spine Journal
Volume 9, Issue 2 , Pages 128-133 , February 2009

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution