Table 2.
A summary of published in vitro biomechanical studies on cervical arthroplasty
| Study | Study design | Prosthesis* | Mechanical variables | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chang et al. [10] (2007) | TDA versus fusion | ProDisc | IDP at the treated and adjacent levels | Adjacent level IDP was similar to intact |
| DiAngelo et al. [14] (2003) | TDA versus fusion | Prestige | Motion at index and adjacent levels | TDA preserved motion and yielded kinematics similar to intact |
| DiAngelo et al. [13] (2004) | TDA versus fusion | ProDisc | Motion at index and adjacent levels | TDA was able to mimic kinematics of the intact spine |
| Dmitriev et al. [15] (2005) | TDA versus fusion | PCM | Motion and IDP | TDA preserved motion and IDP at adjacent level |
| Duggal et al. [16] (2007) | TDA | Bryan | Extension, flexion, and axial rotation motion until failure | Remaining ligaments and annulus sufficient to provide stability with this implant |
| Kotani et al. [23] (2002) | TDA versus fusion | 3D fabric disc | Motion at index and adjacent levels | Increase in extension-flexion motion, no change at adjacent level |
| McAfee et al. [24] (2003) | TDA versus fusion | PCM | Motion, PLL contribution | TDA preserved motion, resection of PLL decreases stability |
| Puttlitz et al. [31] (2004) | TDA | ProDisc | Motion | TDA preserved motion and coupling |
* Prostheses included: ProDisc® (Synthes, Inc, West Chester, PA), Prestige® (Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Memphis, TN), Porous Coated Motion (PCM; Cervitech, Inc, Rockaway, NJ), Bryan® (Medtronic Sofamor Danek); TDA = total disc arthroplasty; IDP = intradiscal pressure; 3D = three-dimensional; PLL = posterior longitudinal ligament.