Feasibility of the Runt Cow for In Vivo Testing of a Spinal Interbody Prosthesis with Preliminary Results

REFERENCES

• DiAngelo D, Foley K, Morrow B, The effects of over-sizing of a disc prosthesis on spine biomechanics. Spine J. 2006;6:104S–105S.
   Google Scholar
• Dooris AP, Goel VK, Grosland NM, Load-sharing between anterior and posterior elements in a lumbar motion segment implanted with an artificial disc. Spine 2001;26:E122–E129.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huang RC, Girardi FP, Cammisa FP, Jr., The implications of constraint in lumbar total disc replacement. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2003;16:412–417.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huang RC, Tropiano P, Marnay T, Range of motion and adjacent level degeneration after lumbar total disc replacement. Spine J. 2006;6:242–247.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kurtz SM, van Ooij A, Ross R, Polyethylene wear and rim fracture in total disc arthroplasty. Spine J. 2007;7:12–21.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee CK, Goel VK. Artificial disc prosthesis: design concepts and criteria. Spine J. 2004;4:209S–218S.
   Google Scholar
• McAfee PC, Cunningham BW, Hayes V, Biomechanical analysis of rotational motions after disc arthroplasty: implications for patients with adult deformities. Spine 2006;31:S152–S160.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Park CK, Ryu KS, Jee WH. Degenerative changes of discs and facet joints in lumbar total disc replacement using ProDisc II: minimum two-year follow-up. Spine 2008;33:1755–1761.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Punt IM, Visser VM, van Rhijn LW, Complications and reoperations of the SB Charité lumbar disc prosthesis: experience in 75 patients. Eur Spine J. 2008;17:36–43.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Putzier M, Funk JF, Schneider SV, Charite total disc replacement—clinical and radiographical results after an average follow-up of 17 years. Eur Spine J. 2006;15:183–189.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rousseau MA, Bradford DS, Bertagnoli R, Disc arthroplasty design influences intervertebral kinematics and facet forces. Spine J. 2006;6:258–266.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sefter JC, Cunningham BW, Hu N, A comparative biomechanical analysis of cervical versus lumbar rotational stability in preparation for cervical and lumbar TDR. Spine J. 2006;6:120S.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Zeh A, Planert M, Siegert G, Release of cobalt and chromium ions into the serum following implantation of the metal-on-metal Maverick-type artificial lumbar disc (Medtronic Sofamor Danek). Spine 2007;32:348–352.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zeegers WS, Bohnen LM, Laaper M, Artificial disc replacement with the modular type SB Charité III: 2-year results in 50 prospectively studied patients. Eur Spine J. 1999;8:210–217.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allen MJ, Schoonmaker JE, Bauer TW, Preclinical evaluation of a poly(vinyl alcohol) hydrogel implant as a replacement for the nucleus pulposus. Spine 2004;29:515–523.
   Google Scholar
• Bertagnoli R, Schönmayr R. Surgical and clinical results with the PDN prosthetic disc-nucleus device. Eur Spine J. 2002;11:S143–S148.
   Google Scholar
• Cook S, Patron L, Salkeld S, Partial disc replacement in the baboon lumbar spine. Spine J. 2005;5:24S–25S.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cunningham BW, Hu N, Beatson HJ, An investigational study of nucleus replacement using an in-situ curable polyurethane: an in vivo non-human primate model. Spine J. 2007;7:156S–157S.
   Google Scholar
• Klara PM, Ray CD. Artificial nucleus replacement: clinical experience. Spine 2002;27:1374–1377.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Myers M, Weinandt B. Understanding endplate changes associated with disc surgery. Spine J. 2002;2:112S–113S.
   Google Scholar
• Pappou IP, Frelinghuysen P, Cammisa FP, Screening for nuclear replacement candidates in a cohort of patients treated surgically for DDD. Sixth Annual Meeting of the Spine Arthroplasty Society, Montreal, Canada, May 9–13, 2006.
   Google Scholar
• Pimenta1 L, Coutinho E, Oliveira L. PDN nine years: lessons learned with the complications. Spine J. 2009;9: 33S.
   Google Scholar
• Shim CS, Lee SH, Park CW, Partial disc replacement with the PDN prosthetic disc nucleus device: early clinical results. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2003;16:324–330.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Buttermann GR, Beaubien BP. Biomechanical characterization of an annulus sparing spinal disc prosthesis. Spine J. 2009;9:744–753.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Buttermann GR, Beaubien BP, Saeger LC. Bovine lumbar intradiscal pressures and motion segment biomechanics. Spine J. 2009;9:105–114.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Buttermann GR, Beaubien BP. Spinal load sharing of a compressible annulus sparing disc prosthesis. Spine J. 2004;4:4S–5S.
   Google Scholar
• Court C, Chin JR, Liebenberg E, Biological and mechanical consequences of transient intervertebral disc bending. Eur Spine J. 2007;16:1899–1906.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Guehring T, Omlor GW, Lorenz H, Disc distraction shows evidence of regenerative potential in degenerated intervertebral discs as evaluated by protein expression, magnetic resonance imaging, and messenger ribonucleic acid expression analysis. Spine 2006;31:1658–1665.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kroeber M, Unglaub F, Guehring T, Effects of controlled dynamic disc distraction on degenerated intervertebral discs: an in vivo study on the rabbit lumbar spine model. Spine 2005;30:181–187.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lotz JC, Hadi T, Bratton C, Anulus fibrosus tension inhibits degenerative structural changes in lamellar collagen. Eur Spine J. 2008;17:1149–1159.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Research Council. The Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1996.
   Google Scholar
• Baramki HG, Papin P, Steffen T. A surgical approach to the ventral aspect of the lumbar vertebrae in the sheep model. Surg Radiol Anat. 2000;22:25–27.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sandhu HS, Turner S, Kabo JM, Distractive properties of a threaded interbody fusion device. An in vivo model. Spine 1996;21:1201–1210.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA). 2000 report of the AVMA panel on Euthanasia. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2001;218:669–696.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gielkens PF, Schortinghuis J, de Jong JR, A comparison of micro-CT, microradiography and histomorphometry in bone research. Arch Oral Biol. 2008;53:558–566.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Miller SC, Wronski TJ. Long-term osteopenic changes in cancellous bone structure in ovariectomized rats. Anat Rec. 1993;236:433–441.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Parr JA, Young T, Dunn-Jena P, Histomorphometrical analysis of the bone–implant interface: comparison of microradiography and bright-field microscopy. Biomaterials 1996;17:1921–1926.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Schortinghuis J, Ruben JL, Meijer HJ, Microradiography to evaluate bone growth into a rat mandibular defect. Arch Oral Biol. 2003;48:155–160.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Thorwarth M, Wehrhan F, Srour S, Evaluation of substitutes for bone: comparison of microradiographic and histological assessments. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2007;45:41–47.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Schiller TD, DeYoung DJ, Schiller RA, Quantitative ingrowth analysis of a porous-coated acetabular component in a canine model. Vet Surg. 1993;22:276–280.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sumner DR, Bryan JM, Urban RM, Measuring the volume fraction of bone ingrowth: a comparison of three techniques. J Orthop Res. 1990;8:448–452.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parfitt AM, Drezner MK, Glorieux FH, Bone histomorphometry: standardization of nomenclature, symbols, and units. Report of the ASBMR Histomorphometry Nomenclature Committee. J Bone Miner Res. 1987;2:595–610.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parfitt AM, Mathews CH, Villanueva AR, Relationships between surface, volume, and thickness of iliac trabecular bone in aging and in osteoporosis. Implications for the microanatomic and cellular mechanisms of bone loss. J Clin Invest. 1983;72:1396–1409.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmidt C, Priemel M, Kohler T, Precision and accuracy of peripheral quantitative computed tomography (pQCT) in the mouse skeleton compared with histology and microcomputed tomography (microCT). J Bone Miner Res. 2003;18:1486–1496.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwartz MP, Recker RR. Comparison of surface density and volume of human iliac trabecular bone measured directly and by applied stereology. Calcif Tissue Int. 1981;33:561–565.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Engelke K, Graeff W, Meiss L, High spatial resolution imaging of bone mineral using computed microtomography. Comparison with microradiography and undecalcified histologic sections. Invest Radiol. 1993;28:341–349.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matsunaga S, Ito H, Sakou T. The effect of vitamin K and D supplementation on ovariectomy-induced bone loss. Calcif Tissue Int. 1999;65:285–289.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Spadaro JA, Damron TA, Horton JA, Density and structural changes in the bone of growing rats after weekly alendronate administration with and without a methotrexate challenge. J Orthop Res. 2006;24:936–944.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cunningham BW, Hu N, Zorn CM, Bioactive titanium calcium phosphate coating for disc arthroplasty: analysis of 58 vertebral end plates after 6- to 12-month implantation. Spine J. 2009;9:836–845.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hu N, Cunningham BW, McAfee PC, Porous coated motion cervical disc replacement: a biomechanical, histomorphometric, and biologic wear analysis in a caprine model. Spine 2006;31:1666–1673.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kostuik JP. Intervertebral disc replacement. Experimental study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1997;337:27–41.
   Google Scholar
• McAfee PC, Cunningham BW, Orbegoso CM, Analysis of porous ingrowth in intervertebral disc prostheses: a nonhuman primate model. Spine 2003;28:332–340.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bini SA, Johnston JO, Martin DL. Compliant prestress fixation in tumor prostheses: interface retrieval data. Orthopedics 2003;23:707–711.
   Google Scholar
• Edwards WT, Zheng Y, Ferrara LA, Structural features and thickness of the vertebral cortex in the thoracolumbar spine. Spine 2001;26:218–225.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grant JP, Oxland TR, Dvorak MF. Mapping the structural properties of the lumbosacral vertebral endplates. Spine 2001;26:889–896.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lowe TG, Hashim S, Wilson LA, A biomechanical study of regional endplate strength and cage morphology as it relates to structural interbody support. Spine 2004;29:2389–2394.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chamay A, Tschantz P. Mechanical influences in bone remodeling. Experimental research on Wolff's law. J Biomech. 1972;5:173–180.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mullender MG, Huiskes R. Proposal for the regulatory mechanism of Wolff's law. J Orthop Res. 1995;13:503–512.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wolff J. Das Gesetz der Transformation der Knochen. Berlin: A. Hirchwild; 1892.
   Google Scholar
• Behrens JC, Walker PS, Shoji H. Variations in strength and structure of cancellous bone at the knee. J Biomech. 1974;7:201–207.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Majumdar S, Newitt D, Mathur A, Magnetic resonance imaging of trabecular bone structure in the distal radius: relationship with X-ray tomographic microscopy and biomechanics. Osteoporos Int. 1996;6:376–385.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• McCalden RW, McGeough JA, Court-Brown CM. Age-related changes in the compressive strength of cancellous bone. The relative importance of changes in density and trabecular architecture. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1997;79:421–427.
   Google Scholar
• Mosekilde L, Mosekilde L. Iliac crest trabecular bone volume as predictor for vertebral compressive strength, ash density and trabecular bone volume in normal individuals. Bone 1988;9:195–199.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nakabayashi Y, Wevers HW, Cooke TD, Bone strength and histomorphometry of the distal femur. J Arthroplasty 1994;9:307–315.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Williams JL, Lewis JL. Properties and an anisotropic model of cancellous bone from the proximal tibial epiphysis. J Biomech Eng. 1982;104:50–56.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wixson RL, Elasky N, Lewis J. Cancellous bone material properties in osteoarthritic and rheumatoid total knee patients. J Orthop Res. 1989;7:885–892.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cunningham BW, Dmitriev AE, Hu N, General principles of total disc replacement arthroplasty: seventeen cases in a nonhuman primate model. Spine 2003;28:S118–S124.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lanyon LE. In vivo bone strain recorded from thoracic vertebrae of sheep. J Biomech. 1972;5:277–281.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ledet EH, Tymeson MP, DiRisio DJ, Direct real-time measurement of in vivo forces in the lumbar spine. Spine J. 2005;5:85–94.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Robson Brown KA, Davies EN, McNally DS. The angular distribution of vertebral trabeculae in modern humans, chimpanzees and the Kebara 2 Neanderthal. J Hum Evol. 2002;43:189–205.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Smit TH. The use of a quadruped as an in vivo model for the study of the spine—biomechanical considerations. Eur Spine J. 2002;11:137–144.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stulberg BN, Trier KK, Naughton M, Results and lessons learned from a United States hip resurfacing investigational device exemption trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90(Suppl. 3):21–26.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar