The placement of artificial disks can alter the center of rotation and kinematic pattern; therefore, forces in the spine during the motion will be affected as a result. The relationship between the location of joint center of artificial disks and forces in the spinal components is not investigated. A musculoskeletal model of the spine was developed, and three location cases of center of rotation were investigated varying 5 mm anteriorly and posteriorly from the default center. Resultant joint forces, ligament forces, facet forces, and muscle forces for each case were predicted during sagittal motion. No considerable difference was observed for joint force (maximum 14%). Anterior shift of center of rotation induced the most ligament forces (200 N) and facet forces (130 N) among the three cases. Posterior and anterior shifts of centers of rotation from the default location caused considerable changes in muscle forces, respectively: 108% and 70% of increase in multifidi muscle and 157% and 187% of increase in short segmental muscle. This study showed that the centers of rotation due to the design and the surgical placement of artificial disk can affect the kinetic results in the spine.
BonoCMLeeCK. Critical analysis of trends in fusion for degenerative disc disease over the past 20 years: influence of technique on fusion rate and clinical outcome. Spine (Phila Pa 1976)2004; 29(4): 455–463; discussion Z455.
2.
BridwellKHSedgewickTAO’BrienMF. The role of fusion and instrumentation in the treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis. J Spinal Disord1993; 6(6): 461–472.
3.
FischgrundJSMackayMHerkowitzHN. 1997 Volvo Award winner in clinical studies. Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis: a prospective, randomized study comparing decompressive laminectomy and arthrodesis with and without spinal instrumentation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976)1997; 22(24): 2807–2812.
4.
HighhouseMESchultzRTDallBE. Lateral intertransverse process single-level fusion for salvage of the unstable failed posterior lumbar interbody fusion. J Spinal Disord1996; 9(1): 59–63.
5.
LeeCK. Accelerated degeneration of the segment adjacent to a lumbar fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976)1988; 13(3): 375–377.
6.
GhiselliGWangJCBhatiaNN. Adjacent segment degeneration in the lumbar spine. J Bone Joint Surg Am2004; 86(7): 1497–1503.
7.
ParkPGartonHJGalaVC. Adjacent segment disease after lumbar or lumbosacral fusion: review of the literature. Spine (Phila Pa 1976)2004; 29(17): 1938–1944.
8.
ChehGBridwellKHLenkeLG. Adjacent segment disease following lumbar/thoracolumbar fusion with pedicle screw instrumentation: a minimum 5-year follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976)2007; 32(20): 2253–2257.
9.
CunninghamBWGordonJDDmitrievAE. Biomechanical evaluation of total disc replacement arthroplasty: an in vitro human cadaveric model. Spine (Phila Pa 1976)2003; 28(20): S110–S117.
10.
Le HuecJCLafageVBonnetX. Validated finite element analysis of the maverick total disc prosthesis. J Spinal Disord Tech2010; 23(4): 249–257.
11.
O’LearyPNicolakisMLorenzMA. Response of Charite total disc replacement under physiologic loads: prosthesis component motion patterns. Spine J2005; 5(6): 590–599.
12.
DemetropoulosCKSenguptaDKKnaubMA. Biomechanical evaluation of the kinematics of the cadaver lumbar spine following disc replacement with the ProDisc-L prosthesis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976)2010; 35(1): 26–31.
13.
RohlmannAZanderTBergmannG. Effect of total disc replacement with ProDisc on intersegmental rotation of the lumbar spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976)2005; 30(7): 738–743.
14.
ZanderTRohlmannABergmannG. Influence of different artificial disc kinematics on spine biomechanics. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)2009; 24(2): 135–142.
15.
StieberJRDonaldGD3rd. Early failure of lumbar disc replacement: case report and review of the literature. J Spinal Disord Tech2006; 19(1): 55–60.
16.
ShimCSLeeSHShinHD. CHARITE versus ProDisc: a comparative study of a minimum 3-year follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976)2007; 32(9): 1012–1018.
17.
RundellSAAuerbachJDBalderstonRA. Total disc replacement positioning affects facet contact forces and vertebral body strains. Spine (Phila Pa 1976)2008; 33(23): 2510–2517.
18.
DoorisAPGoelVKGroslandNM. Load-sharing between anterior and posterior elements in a lumbar motion segment implanted with an artificial disc. Spine (Phila Pa 1976)2001; 26(6): E122–E129.
19.
De ZeeMHansenLWongC. A generic detailed rigid-body lumbar spine model. J Biomech2007; 40(6): 1219–1227.
20.
RasmussenJDamsgaardMVoigtM. Muscle recruitment by the min/max criterion—a comparative numerical study. J Biomech2001; 34(3): 409–415.
21.
HanKSZanderTTaylorWR. An enhanced and validated generic thoraco-lumbar spine model for prediction of muscle forces. Med Eng Phys2012; 34(6): 709–716.
22.
PearcyMJBogdukN. Instantaneous axes of rotation of the lumbar intervertebral joints. Spine (Phila Pa 1976)1988; 13(9): 1033–1041.
23.
HansenLDe ZeeMRasmussenJ. Anatomy and biomechanics of the back muscles in the lumbar spine with reference to biomechanical modeling. Spine (Phila Pa 1976)2006; 31(17): 1888–1899.
ZanderTRohlmannABergmannG. Influence of ligament stiffness on the mechanical behavior of a functional spinal unit. J Biomech2004; 37(7): 1107–1111.
26.
SharmaMLangranaNARodriguezJ. Role of ligaments and facets in lumbar spinal stability. Spine (Phila Pa 1976)1995; 20(8): 887–900.
27.
SchmidtHHeuerFClaesL. The relation between the instantaneous center of rotation and facet joint forces—a finite element analysis. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)2008; 23(3): 270–278.
28.
ZhuQAParkYBSjovoldSG. Can extra-articular strains be used to measure facet contact forces in the lumbar spine? An in-vitro biomechanical study. Proc IMechE, Part H: J Engineering in Medicine2008; 222(2): 171–184.
29.
Le HuecJCBassoYAunobleS. Influence of facet and posterior muscle degeneration on clinical results of lumbar total disc replacement: two-year follow-up. J Spinal Disord Tech2005; 18(3): 219–223.
30.
MoumeneMGeislerFH. Comparison of biomechanical function at ideal and varied surgical placement for two lumbar artificial disc implant designs: mobile-core versus fixed-core. Spine (Phila Pa 1976)2007; 32(17): 1840–1851.
KimYHKimKParkWM. Biomechanical comparison of three types of artificial discs in total disc replacement of lumbar spine. In: 54th annual meeting of the Orthopaedic Research Society, San Francisco, USA, 2–5March 2008, paper no. 1346. Orthopaedic Research Society.
33.
KimKTLeeSHSukKS. Biomechanical changes of the lumbar segment after total disc replacement: charite(r), prodisc(r) and maverick(r) using finite element model study. J Korean Neurosurg Soc2010; 47(6): 446–453.
34.
WilkeHJSchmidtRRichterM. The role of prosthesis design on segmental biomechanics: semi-constrained versus unconstrained prostheses and anterior versus posterior centre of rotation. Eur Spine J2012; 21(Suppl. 5): S577–S584.
35.
RohlmannAMannAZanderT. Effect of an artificial disc on lumbar spine biomechanics: a probabilistic finite element study. Eur Spine J2009; 18(1): 89–97.
36.
GejoRMatsuiHKawaguchiY. Serial changes in trunk muscle performance after posterior lumbar surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976)1999; 24(10): 1023–1028.
37.
DederingAHarms-RingdahlKNemethG. Back extensor muscle fatigue in patients with lumbar disc herniation. Pre-operative and post-operative analysis of electromyography, endurance time and subjective factors. Eur Spine J2006; 15(5): 559–569.
38.
KongWZGoelVKGilbertsonLG. Effects of muscle dysfunction on lumbar spine mechanics. A finite element study based on a two motion segments model. Spine (Phila Pa 1976)1996; 21(19): 2197–2206; discussion 2206–2207.
39.
DavidT. Lumbar disc prosthesis. Surgical technique, indications and clinical results in 22 patients with a minimum of 12 months follow-up. Eur Spine J1993; 1(4): 254–259.
40.
BertagnoliRKumarS. Indications for full prosthetic disc arthroplasty: a correlation of clinical outcome against a variety of indications. Eur Spine J2002; 11(Suppl. 2): S131–S136.
41.
HuangRCGirardiFPCammisaFPJr. Correlation between range of motion and outcome after lumbar total disc replacement: 8.6-year follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976)2005; 30(12): 1407–1411.
42.
LemaireJPCarrierHSarialiE-H. Clinical and radiological outcomes with the Charite artificial disc: a 10-year minimum follow-up. J Spinal Disord Tech2005; 18(4): 353–359.
43.
TropianoPHuangRCGirardiFP. Lumbar total disc replacement. Seven to eleven-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am2005; 87(3): 490–496.
44.
SenguptaDKDemetropoulosCKHerkowitzHN. Instant axis of rotation of L4-5 motion segment—a biomechanical study on cadaver lumbar spine. J Indian Med Assoc2011; 109(6): 389–390, 392–393, 395.
