Biomechanical comparison of lumbar disc prostheses

Prodisc-l, charité, and maverick disc implant systems

D. M. Wido, B. P. Kelly, Kevin Foley, B. Morrow, P. Wong, K. Kiehm, A. Sin, R. Bertagnoli, Denis Diangelo

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contribution

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate the in vitro biomechanics of 3 total disc replacement devices: ProDisc-L (Synthes Spine, West Chester, PA), Maverick (Medtronic, Memphis, TN), and Charité (DePuy, Warsaw, IN). A total of 19 fresh human cadaveric spines (L1-S) were prepared and tested in flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation to a target bending moment of 8 Nm. Five different spine conditions were tested: harvested (H) (n=19), L5-S lumbar disc replacement using ProDisc-L (n=13), Maverick (n=7), and Charité (n=6), and L5-S pedicle screw fixation (PSF) (n=19). Measurements included vertebral motions, total spine rotation, and applied loads. The percent contribution of rotation at the instrumented (L5-S) level relative to total rotation (L1-S), as well as at the remaining adjacent levels relative to total rotation, was determined at a common load limit (8Nm) and compared using a one-way ANOVA and SNK test (P<0.05). Compared to pedicle screw fixation, all three disc prostheses remained stable and provided improved lumbar mobility.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Title of host publication25th Southern Biomedical Engineering Conference 2009
Pages223-226
Number of pages4
Volume24
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 6 2009
Event25th Southern Biomedical Engineering Conference 2009 - Miami, FL, United States
Duration: May 15 2009May 17 2009

Other

Other25th Southern Biomedical Engineering Conference 2009
CountryUnited States
CityMiami, FL
Period5/15/095/17/09

Fingerprint

Prosthetics
Biomechanics
Load limits
Bending moments
Analysis of variance (ANOVA)

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Bioengineering
  • Biomedical Engineering

Cite this

Wido, D. M., Kelly, B. P., Foley, K., Morrow, B., Wong, P., Kiehm, K., ... Diangelo, D. (2009). Biomechanical comparison of lumbar disc prostheses: Prodisc-l, charité, and maverick disc implant systems. In 25th Southern Biomedical Engineering Conference 2009 (Vol. 24, pp. 223-226) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-01697-4_79

Biomechanical comparison of lumbar disc prostheses : Prodisc-l, charité, and maverick disc implant systems. / Wido, D. M.; Kelly, B. P.; Foley, Kevin; Morrow, B.; Wong, P.; Kiehm, K.; Sin, A.; Bertagnoli, R.; Diangelo, Denis.

25th Southern Biomedical Engineering Conference 2009. Vol. 24 2009. p. 223-226.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contribution

Wido, DM, Kelly, BP, Foley, K, Morrow, B, Wong, P, Kiehm, K, Sin, A, Bertagnoli, R & Diangelo, D 2009, Biomechanical comparison of lumbar disc prostheses: Prodisc-l, charité, and maverick disc implant systems. in 25th Southern Biomedical Engineering Conference 2009. vol. 24, pp. 223-226, 25th Southern Biomedical Engineering Conference 2009, Miami, FL, United States, 5/15/09. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-01697-4_79
Wido DM, Kelly BP, Foley K, Morrow B, Wong P, Kiehm K et al. Biomechanical comparison of lumbar disc prostheses: Prodisc-l, charité, and maverick disc implant systems. In 25th Southern Biomedical Engineering Conference 2009. Vol. 24. 2009. p. 223-226 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-01697-4_79
Wido, D. M. ; Kelly, B. P. ; Foley, Kevin ; Morrow, B. ; Wong, P. ; Kiehm, K. ; Sin, A. ; Bertagnoli, R. ; Diangelo, Denis. / Biomechanical comparison of lumbar disc prostheses : Prodisc-l, charité, and maverick disc implant systems. 25th Southern Biomedical Engineering Conference 2009. Vol. 24 2009. pp. 223-226
@inproceedings{30d56ef1aee9424c93430a6e12b5423a,
title = "Biomechanical comparison of lumbar disc prostheses: Prodisc-l, charit{\'e}, and maverick disc implant systems",
abstract = "The purpose of this study was to investigate the in vitro biomechanics of 3 total disc replacement devices: ProDisc-L (Synthes Spine, West Chester, PA), Maverick (Medtronic, Memphis, TN), and Charit{\'e} (DePuy, Warsaw, IN). A total of 19 fresh human cadaveric spines (L1-S) were prepared and tested in flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation to a target bending moment of 8 Nm. Five different spine conditions were tested: harvested (H) (n=19), L5-S lumbar disc replacement using ProDisc-L (n=13), Maverick (n=7), and Charit{\'e} (n=6), and L5-S pedicle screw fixation (PSF) (n=19). Measurements included vertebral motions, total spine rotation, and applied loads. The percent contribution of rotation at the instrumented (L5-S) level relative to total rotation (L1-S), as well as at the remaining adjacent levels relative to total rotation, was determined at a common load limit (8Nm) and compared using a one-way ANOVA and SNK test (P<0.05). Compared to pedicle screw fixation, all three disc prostheses remained stable and provided improved lumbar mobility.",
author = "Wido, {D. M.} and Kelly, {B. P.} and Kevin Foley and B. Morrow and P. Wong and K. Kiehm and A. Sin and R. Bertagnoli and Denis Diangelo",
year = "2009",
month = "11",
day = "6",
doi = "10.1007/978-3-642-01697-4_79",
language = "English (US)",
isbn = "9783642016967",
volume = "24",
pages = "223--226",
booktitle = "25th Southern Biomedical Engineering Conference 2009",

}

TY - GEN

T1 - Biomechanical comparison of lumbar disc prostheses

T2 - Prodisc-l, charité, and maverick disc implant systems

AU - Wido, D. M.

AU - Kelly, B. P.

AU - Foley, Kevin

AU - Morrow, B.

AU - Wong, P.

AU - Kiehm, K.

AU - Sin, A.

AU - Bertagnoli, R.

AU - Diangelo, Denis

PY - 2009/11/6

Y1 - 2009/11/6

N2 - The purpose of this study was to investigate the in vitro biomechanics of 3 total disc replacement devices: ProDisc-L (Synthes Spine, West Chester, PA), Maverick (Medtronic, Memphis, TN), and Charité (DePuy, Warsaw, IN). A total of 19 fresh human cadaveric spines (L1-S) were prepared and tested in flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation to a target bending moment of 8 Nm. Five different spine conditions were tested: harvested (H) (n=19), L5-S lumbar disc replacement using ProDisc-L (n=13), Maverick (n=7), and Charité (n=6), and L5-S pedicle screw fixation (PSF) (n=19). Measurements included vertebral motions, total spine rotation, and applied loads. The percent contribution of rotation at the instrumented (L5-S) level relative to total rotation (L1-S), as well as at the remaining adjacent levels relative to total rotation, was determined at a common load limit (8Nm) and compared using a one-way ANOVA and SNK test (P<0.05). Compared to pedicle screw fixation, all three disc prostheses remained stable and provided improved lumbar mobility.

AB - The purpose of this study was to investigate the in vitro biomechanics of 3 total disc replacement devices: ProDisc-L (Synthes Spine, West Chester, PA), Maverick (Medtronic, Memphis, TN), and Charité (DePuy, Warsaw, IN). A total of 19 fresh human cadaveric spines (L1-S) were prepared and tested in flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation to a target bending moment of 8 Nm. Five different spine conditions were tested: harvested (H) (n=19), L5-S lumbar disc replacement using ProDisc-L (n=13), Maverick (n=7), and Charité (n=6), and L5-S pedicle screw fixation (PSF) (n=19). Measurements included vertebral motions, total spine rotation, and applied loads. The percent contribution of rotation at the instrumented (L5-S) level relative to total rotation (L1-S), as well as at the remaining adjacent levels relative to total rotation, was determined at a common load limit (8Nm) and compared using a one-way ANOVA and SNK test (P<0.05). Compared to pedicle screw fixation, all three disc prostheses remained stable and provided improved lumbar mobility.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=70350599794&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=70350599794&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/978-3-642-01697-4_79

DO - 10.1007/978-3-642-01697-4_79

M3 - Conference contribution

SN - 9783642016967

VL - 24

SP - 223

EP - 226

BT - 25th Southern Biomedical Engineering Conference 2009

ER -