Results 1 to 4 of 4
Like Tree1Likes
  • 1 Post By Fuzzy

Biomechanical comparison of a 2-level Maverick disc replacement with a hybrid 1-level disc replacement & 1-level anterior lumbar interbody fusion

This is a discussion on Biomechanical comparison of a 2-level Maverick disc replacement with a hybrid 1-level disc replacement & 1-level anterior lumbar interbody fusion within the Artificial Disc Replacement forums, part of the Spine Surgery Support category; The Spine Journal Volume 9, Issue 10, October 2009, Pages 830-835 Biomechanical comparison of a two-level Maverick disc replacement with ...

  1. #1
    Founder / Administrator Justin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Philadelphia
    Posts
    4,503

    Default Biomechanical comparison of a 2-level Maverick disc replacement with a hybrid 1-level disc replacement & 1-level anterior lumbar interbody fusion

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

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

    Serkan Erkan MDa, b, Yamil Rivera MDb, Chunhui Wu PhDc, Amir A. Mehbod MDb and Ensor E. Transfeldt MDb

    aDepartment of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Celal Bayar University, School of Medicine, Izmir Cad. No.10, Manisa 45050, Turkey
    bTwin Cities Spine Center, 913 East 26th Street, Suite 600, Minneapolis, MN 55404, USA
    cFoundation for the Advancement of Spinal Knowledge, 913 East 26th Street, Suite 600, Minneapolis, MN 55404, USA. Copyright © 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.


    Background context

    Multilevel lumbar disc disease (MLDD) is a common finding in many patients. Surgical solutions for MLDD include fusion or disc replacement. The hybrid model, combining fusion and disc replacement, is a potential alternative for patients who require surgical intervention at both L5–S1 and L4–L5. The indications for this hybrid model could be posterior element insufficiency, severe facet pathology, calcified ligamentum flavum, and subarticular disease confirming spinal stenosis at L5–S1 level, or previous fusion surgery at L5–S1 and new symptomatic pathology at L4–L5. Biomechanical data of the hybrid model with the Maverick disc and anterior fusion are not available in the literature.

    Purpose

    To compare the biomechanical properties of a two-level Maverick disc replacement at L4–L5, L5–S1, and a hybrid model consisting of an L4–L5 Maverick disc replacement with an L5–S1 anterior lumbar interbody fusion using multidirectional flexibility test.

    Study design

    An in vitro human cadaveric biomechanical study.

    Methods

    Six fresh human cadaveric lumbar specimens (L4–S1) were subjected to unconstrained load in axial torsion (AT), lateral bending (LB), flexion (F), extension (E), and flexion-extension (FE) using multidirectional flexibility test. Four surgical treatments—intact, one-level Maverick at L5–S1, two-level Maverick between L4 and S1, and the hybrid model (anterior fusion at L5–S1 and Maverick at L4–L5) were tested in sequential order. The range of motion of each treatment was calculated.

    Results

    The Maverick disc replacement slightly reduced intact motion in AT and LB at both levels. The total FE motion was similar to the intact motion. However, the E motion is significantly increased (approximately 50% higher) and F motion is significantly decreased (30%–50% lower). The anterior fusion using a cage and anterior plate significantly reduced spinal motion compared with the condition (p<.05). No significant differences were found between two-level Maverick disc prosthesis and the hybrid model in terms of all motion types at L4–L5 level (p>.05).

    Conclusion

    The Maverick disc preserved total motion but altered the motion pattern of the intact condition. This result is similar to unconstrained devices such as Charité. The motion at L4–L5 of the hybrid model is similar to that of two-level Maverick disc replacement. The fusion procedure using an anterior plate significantly reduced intact motion. Clinical studies are recommended to validate the efficacy of the hybrid model.

    Maverick; Total disc replacement; Fusion; Biomechanics

    Justin Averna
    Founder & President, Spine Patient Society™
    www.SpinePatientSociety.org
    A 501(c)(3) Tax-Exempt Nonprofit & Charitable Organization


    • 1994: Football Injury, Severe Hyperextension
    • 1997: Snow Skiing Injury
    • 3/7/1997: Laminotomy L4/L5
    • 1999 & 2003: Motor Vehicle Accidents (not at fault both times) --> Grade V Annular Tears L4/L5 & L5/L6
    • 11/15/2003: 2-Level ProDisc® L4/L5 & L5/L6*, *lumbosacral transitional vertebra --> Dr. Rudolf Bertagnoli
    • 4/2008: 4.5 years pain-free before "new" leg pain
    • 5/14/2009: Dynamic Stabilization System L4/L5, Dr. Rudolf Bertagnoli
    I'm here to help.
    Questions? Suggestions? Need help with registering, creating a signature, etc.?
    justin (at) spinepatientsociety.org


    Disclosure: I have no financial relationships with any surgeons, spine clinics, device manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies, hospitals, etc. -- the SPS Board of Directors serve without compensation.

  2. #2
    Senior Member Fuzzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    151

    Default

    Thanks, Justin.

    I am a living specimen of the hybrid procedure discussed above and in real life have more flexibility then I did before the procedure in all ways. And no more pain makes a big difference moving around every day.
    Genn likes this.
    Nov 07: Fusion (Stalif) S1/L5, ADR L4/5 (Activ-L)for strong back and leg pain (Zeegers, Germany).
    Nov 09: 2 level cervical ADR Prodisc-C (Nova) C4/5/6 to stop progression of cervical myleopathy. (Bertagnoli, Germany).

  3. #3
    Founder / Administrator Justin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Philadelphia
    Posts
    4,503

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuzzy View Post
    Thanks, Justin.

    I am a living specimen of the hybrid procedure discussed above and in real life have more flexibility then I did before the procedure in all ways. And no more pain makes a big difference moving around every day.
    Thanks for sharing, Fuzzy. Your personal experience is priceless to Spine Patient around the world. :thumpup:

    Justin Averna
    Founder & President, Spine Patient Society™
    www.SpinePatientSociety.org
    A 501(c)(3) Tax-Exempt Nonprofit & Charitable Organization


    • 1994: Football Injury, Severe Hyperextension
    • 1997: Snow Skiing Injury
    • 3/7/1997: Laminotomy L4/L5
    • 1999 & 2003: Motor Vehicle Accidents (not at fault both times) --> Grade V Annular Tears L4/L5 & L5/L6
    • 11/15/2003: 2-Level ProDisc® L4/L5 & L5/L6*, *lumbosacral transitional vertebra --> Dr. Rudolf Bertagnoli
    • 4/2008: 4.5 years pain-free before "new" leg pain
    • 5/14/2009: Dynamic Stabilization System L4/L5, Dr. Rudolf Bertagnoli
    I'm here to help.
    Questions? Suggestions? Need help with registering, creating a signature, etc.?
    justin (at) spinepatientsociety.org


    Disclosure: I have no financial relationships with any surgeons, spine clinics, device manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies, hospitals, etc. -- the SPS Board of Directors serve without compensation.

  4. #4
    Senior Member Katie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,800

    Default

    The hybrid was what Dr. Bitan wanted to do on me. I was never sure if he believed in the hybrid itself, or whether he was just limited to using single level ADR because of FDR restrictions.

    I was happy to have either two level ADR or the hybrid. My last surgeon was hoping to use one ADR and two fusion from the L3/4, 4/5 and L5/S1. I would like to learn more about the comparisons with these two options.

    Thanks again Justin.
    Severe compression of spinal cord, flaval ligament, etc. at C4/5 & 5/6.
    Herniation and compression, at L3/4 to L5/S1 plus spondylosis at the latter level. Severe allergy to most metals.
    Three level surgery in Brazil with Dr. Luiz Pimenta on March 17/2010 using non-metal appliances. L5/S1-PEEK cage, ALIF; L4/5-PEEK cage, XLIF; C5/6-NuVasive NeoDisc. Three separate approaches, two minimally invasive. Currently minor residual back pain, from SI ligament and still overdoing things . Therapy and chiropractic treatments helping immensely. Gone from being almost bedridden to near normal activities including gardening. Life is gooooood!

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •