SUBSIDENCE OF THE CHARITE TOTAL DISC ARTHROPLASTY AND PREDISPOSING FACTORS.

Katsimihas M, Bailey C, Ignitiuk A, et al. SUBSIDENCE OF THE CHARITE TOTAL DISC ARTHROPLASTY AND PREDISPOSING FACTORS.. Orthop Procs. 2010;92-B(SUPP_III):381-381. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.92BSUPP_III.0920381

Katsimihas, M, et al. “SUBSIDENCE OF THE CHARITE TOTAL DISC ARTHROPLASTY AND PREDISPOSING FACTORS..” Orthopaedic Proceedings, vol. 92-B, no. SUPP_III, 2010, pp. 381-381., https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.92BSUPP_III.0920381

Katsimihas, M., Bailey, C., Ignitiuk, A., Fleming, J., Issa, K., Rosas-Arellano, P., Bailey, S., & Gurr, K. (2010). SUBSIDENCE OF THE CHARITE TOTAL DISC ARTHROPLASTY AND PREDISPOSING FACTORS.. Orthopaedic Proceedings, 92-B(SUPP_III), 381-381. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.92BSUPP_III.0920381

Katsimihas, M., Bailey, C., Ignitiuk, A., Fleming, J., Issa, K., Rosas-Arellano, P. et al. (2010) “SUBSIDENCE OF THE CHARITE TOTAL DISC ARTHROPLASTY AND PREDISPOSING FACTORS..” Orthopaedic Proceedings, 92-B(SUPP_III), pp. 381-381. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.92BSUPP_III.0920381

Katsimihas, M, CS Bailey, A Ignitiuk, J Fleming, K Issa, P Rosas-Arellano, SI Bailey, and K Gurr. “SUBSIDENCE OF THE CHARITE TOTAL DISC ARTHROPLASTY AND PREDISPOSING FACTORS..” Orthopaedic Proceedings 92-B, no. SUPP_III (2010): 381-381. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.92BSUPP_III.0920381

Katsimihas M, Bailey C, Ignitiuk A, Fleming J, Issa K, Rosas-Arellano P, et al. SUBSIDENCE OF THE CHARITE TOTAL DISC ARTHROPLASTY AND PREDISPOSING FACTORS.. Orthop Procs. 2010 Jul 1;92-B(SUPP_III):381-381. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.92BSUPP_III.0920381

Copy to clipboard

Mendeley

BibTeX

EndNote

RIS

Abstract

Purpose: To investigate subsidence of the Charite total disc arthroplasty (TDA) and to identify if a discrepancy between vertebral endplate and the Charite footprint predispose to subsidence.

Methods: Between July 2001 and May 2008 64 patients underwent a Charite TDA (DePuy Spine, Raynham, MA). They were prospectively followed at 3, 6, 12 months, and once a year thereafter.

The following measurements were performed on the replaced motion segment using a lateral radiograph:

The anterior-posterior (AP) dimension of the end plates.
Amount of subsidence.
The distance between the TDA and the posterior and anterior borders of the vertebra bodies (to represent the extent of uncoverage of the endplate by the TDA).
The AP dimension of the TDA metal endplate.

The ratio between the actual and radiographic AP length of the metal endplate was calculated and utilized as the correction factor for the error of magnification on all other radiographic measurements.

Results: At L5-S1 the mean subsidence was 1.87 mm and occurred exclusively at the posterior part of the inferior end plate of L5. The mean posterior uncoverage was 3.5 mm (L5) and 0.27 mm (S1).

At L4–L5 the mean subsidence was 1.48 mm (L4) and 0.56 mm (L5). Posterior uncoverage of L4 and L5 vertebrae were 4.81 and 2.22 mm, respectively.

Subsidence of more than 1 mm was present in all cases where the posterior uncoverage of the end plate with the TDA was more than 2 mm (odds ratio: 5.7). Subsidence was non – progressive in all cases.

An anatomic mismatch exists between L5 and S1 endplates in the AP dimension; in more than half the patients S1 is shorter than L5.

Conclusion: The radiographic measurements suggest an increased likelihood of subsidence with more than 2 mm of posterior uncoverage of the end plate by the TDA. The endplate AP length of S1 is frequently less than that of L5. Implant selection based on the smaller S1 endplate may produce worrisome uncoverage of the L5 inferior endplate leading to an increased risk of subsidence and possible catastrophic failure. TDA design should afford modularity to compensate.

No financial benefits or funding has been received for the completion of this study.

Correspondence should be addressed to BASS/BCSS c/o BOA, at the Royal College of Surgeons, 35–43 Lincoln’s Inn Fields, London, WC2A 3PE, England.