Traditional experimental methods are unable to study the kinematics of whole lumbar spine specimens under physiologic compressive preloads because the spine without active musculature buckles under just 120 N of vertical load. However, the lumbar spine can support a compressive load of physiologic magnitude (up to 1200 N) without collapsing if the load is applied along a follower load path. This study tested the hypothesis that the load–displacement response of the lumbar spine in flexion–extension is affected by the magnitude of the follower preload and the follower preload path. Twenty‐one fresh human cadaveric lumbar spines were tested in flexion–extension under increasing compressive follower preload applied along two distinctly different optimized preload paths. The first (neutral) preload path was considered optimum if the specimen underwent the least angular change in its lordosis when the full range of preload (0–1200 N) was applied in its neutral posture. The second (flexed) preload path was optimized for an intermediate specimen posture between neutral and full flexion. A twofold increase in flexion stiffness occurred around the neutral posture as the preload was increased from 0 to 1200 N. The preload magnitude (400 N and larger) significantly affected the range of motion (ROM), with a 25% decrease at 1200 N preload applied along the neutral path. When the preload was applied along a path optimized for an intermediate forward‐flexed posture, only a 15% decrease in ROM occurred at 1200 N. The results demonstrate that whole lumbar spine specimens can be subjected to compressive follower preloads of in vivo magnitudes while allowing physiologic mobility under flexion–extension moments. The optimized follower preload provides a method to simulate the resultant vector of the muscles that allow the spine to support physiologic compressive loads induced during flexion–extension activities. © 2002 Orthopaedic Research Society. Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

N/A.

No abstract

This study tested the hypotheses that (1) cervical total disc replacement with a compressible, sixdegree-of-freedom prosthesis would allow restoration of physiologic range and quality of motion, and (2) the kinematic response would not be adversely affected by variability in prosthesis position in the sagittal plane. Twelve human cadaveric cervical spines were tested. Prostheses were implanted at C5-C6. Range of motion (ROM) was measured in flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation under ±1.5 Nm moments. Motion coupling between axial rotation and lateral bending was calculated. Stiffness in the high flexibility zone was evaluated in all three testing modes, while the center of rotation (COR) was calculated using digital video fluoroscopic images in flexion-extension. Implantation in the middle position increased ROM in flexion-extension from 13.5 ± 2.3 to 15.7 ± 3.0°(p \ 0.05), decreased axial rotation from 9.9 ± 1.7 to 8.3 ± 1.6°(p \ 0.05), and decreased lateral bending from 8.0 ± 2.1 to 4.5 ± 1.1°( p \ 0.05). Coupled lateral bending decreased from 0.62 ± 0.16 to 0.39 ± 0.15°for each degree of axial rotation (p \ 0.05). Flexion-extension stiffness of the reconstructed segment with the prosthesis in the middle position did not deviate significantly from intact controls, whereas the lateral bending and axial rotation stiffness values were significantly larger than intact. Implanting the prosthesis in the posterior position as compared to the middle position did not significantly affect the ROM, motion coupling, or stiffness of the reconstructed segment; however, the COR location better approximated intact controls with the prosthesis midline located within ±1 mm of the disc-space midline. Overall, the kinematic response after reconstruction with the compressible, six-degree-offreedom prosthesis within ±1 mm of the disc-space midline approximated the intact response in flexion-extension. Clinical studies are needed to understand and interpret the effects of limited restoration of lateral bending and axial rotation motions and motion coupling on clinical outcome.

Unilateral complete or even partial uncinatectomy can normalize lateral bending after TDR. Bilateral complete uncinatectomy is not necessary to restore lateral bending and may result in significantly increased range of motion in flexion-extension and axial rotation compared with intact values.