The Spine Journal
Volume 9, Issue 10 , Pages 830-835 , October 2009

Biomechanical comparison of a two-level Maverick disc replacement with a hybrid one-level disc replacement and one-level anterior lumbar interbody fusion

  • Serkan Erkan, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Celal Bayar University, School of Medicine, Izmir Cad. No.10, Manisa 45050, Turkey
    • Twin Cities Spine Center, 913 East 26th Street, Suite 600, Minneapolis, MN 55404, USA
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Celal Bayar University, School of Medicine, Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Izmir Cad. No.10, 45050 Manisa, Turkey.
    • ,
  • Yamil Rivera, MD

      Affiliations

    • Twin Cities Spine Center, 913 East 26th Street, Suite 600, Minneapolis, MN 55404, USA
    • ,
  • Chunhui Wu, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Foundation for the Advancement of Spinal Knowledge, 913 East 26th Street, Suite 600, Minneapolis, MN 55404, USA
    • ,
  • Amir A. Mehbod, MD

      Affiliations

    • Twin Cities Spine Center, 913 East 26th Street, Suite 600, Minneapolis, MN 55404, USA
    • ,
  • Ensor E. Transfeldt, MD

      Affiliations

    • Twin Cities Spine Center, 913 East 26th Street, Suite 600, Minneapolis, MN 55404, USA

Received 31 October 2008 ,Revised 30 March 2009 ,Accepted 17 April 2009.

References 

  1. Videman T, Battie MC. The influence of occupation on lumbar degeneration. Spine. 1999;24:1164–1168
  2. Herkowitz HN, Sidhu KS. Lumbar spine fusion in the treatment of degenerative conditions: current indications and recommendations. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 1995;3:123–135
  3. Jackson RK, Boston DA, Edge AJ. Lateral mass fusion. A prospective study of a consecutive series with long-term follow-up. Spine. 1985;10:828–832
  4. Kiviluoto O, Santavirta S, Salenius P, Morri P, Pylkkanen P. Postero-lateral spine fusion. A 1–4-year follow-up of 80 consecutive patients. Acta Orthop Scand. 1985;56:152–154
  5. O'Beirne J, O'Neill D, Gallagher J, Williams DH. Spinal fusion for back pain: a clinical and radiological review. J Spinal Disord. 1992;5:32–38
  6. Gillet P. The fate of the adjacent motion segments after lumbar fusion. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2003;16:338–345
  7. Panjabi M, Henderson G, Abjornson C, Yue J. Multidirectional testing of one- and two-level ProDisc-L versus simulated fusions. Spine. 2007;32:1311–1319
  8. Zigler J, Delamarter R, Spivak JM, et al. 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. Spine. 2007;32:1155–1162discussion 1163
  9. Bertagnoli R, Yue JJ, Shah RV, et al. The treatment of disabling multilevel lumbar discogenic low back pain with total disc arthroplasty utilizing the ProDisc prosthesis: a prospective study with 2-year minimum follow-up. Spine. 2005;30:2192–2199
  10. SariAli el H, Lemaire JP, Pascal-Mousselard H, Carrier H, Skalli W. 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. Eur Spine J. 2006;15:1501–1510
  11. Siepe CJ, Mayer HM, Wiechert K, Korge A. Clinical results of total lumbar disc replacement with ProDisc II: three-year results for different indications. Spine. 2006;31:1923–1932
  12. Le Huec JC, Mathews H, Basso Y, et al. Clinical results of Maverick lumbar total disc replacement: two-year prospective follow-up. Orthop Clin North Am. 2005;36:315–322
  13. Akesen B, Wu C, Mehbod AA, Transfeldt EE. Biomechanical evaluation of paracoccygeal transsacral fixation. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2008;21:39–44
  14. Cho W, Wu C, Mehbod AA, Transfeldt EE. Comparison of cage designs for transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a biomechanical study. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2008;23:979–985
  15. Mathews HH, Lehuec JC, Friesem T, Zdeblick T, Eisermann L. Design rationale and biomechanics of Maverick total disc arthroplasty with early clinical results. Spine J. 2004;4:268S–275S
  16. Hitchon PW, Eichholz K, Barry C, et al. Biomechanical studies of an artificial disc implant in the human cadaveric spine. J Neurosurg Spine. 2005;2:339–343
  17. Cunningham BW, Gordon JD, Dmitriev AE, Hu N, McAfee PC. Biomechanical evaluation of total disc replacement arthroplasty: an in vitro human cadaveric model. Spine. 2003;28:S110–S117
  18. Panjabi MM, Oxland TR, Yamamoto I, Crisco JJ. Mechanical behavior of the human lumbar and lumbosacral spine as shown by three-dimensional- load-displacement curves. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1994;76:413–424
  19. O'Leary P, Nicolakis M, Lorenz MA, et al. Response of Charite total disc replacement under physiologic loads: prosthesis component motion patterns. Spine J. 2005;5:590–599
  20. Kotani Y, Cunningham BW, Abumi K, et al. Multidirectional flexibility analysis of anterior and posterior lumbar artificial disc reconstruction: in vitro human cadaveric spine model. Eur Spine J. 2006;15:1511–1520

 FDA device/drug status: investigational for this indication (Medtronic Maverick disc replacement).

 Author disclosures: SE, YR, CW (research support, Medtronic); AAM, EET (consultants Medtronic and Stryker; research support, Medtronic). Implants were provided by Medtronic.

PII: S1529-9430(09)00168-5

doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2009.04.014

The Spine Journal
Volume 9, Issue 10 , Pages 830-835 , October 2009

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution