It is believed that wear of replacement joints A five active degree of freedom (DOF) spine simulator was used to compare the effects of varying the kinematic and loading input parameters on a ProDisc-L TDR (Synthes Spine). A four DOF standard ISO (ISO18192-1) test was followed by a five DOF test which included the AP shear force. The standard ISO test was repeated on a second simulator (of identical design) but with the phasing of the lateral bend (LB) and flexion extension (FE) motions changed to be in-phase, creating a low cross-shear motion pattern. The standard ISO test was then modified to give half the ISO standard axial loading. All tests conducted were based on the ISO18192-1 standard for lumbar implants with 15 g/l protein lubricant and modified as described. Gravimetric wear measurements were taken every million cycles (mc) in units of milligrams (mg). Six discs were tested to give statistically significant results.Introduction
Methods
The purpose of this study was to establish the a)feasibility, b) reproducibility of spinal Quantec scans (a non-intrusive surface topography system) and c) the validity of the Quantec Q-angle against Cobb angles from spinal radiographs, in non-ambulant children with cerebral palsy (CP). Eighteen non-ambulant children (aged 5–11 years) with CP had successful clinical, radiological and Quantec assessment of their spine while seated in a supportive seating system. Scoliosis incidence was 72%, Cobb angles ranged from 1–73° (mean 18.2°). Quantec scanning was feasible with appropriate postural support. Mean interobserver differences were 0.5 ± 5.8° (median 1.3°, 5 / 95th percentiles lying at −7.3 / 8.5° respectively). Mean differences between Cobb and Q-angle were 0.02 ± 6.2° (median 1.0°, with 5 / 95th percentiles lying at −8.2 / 7.7° respectively). Surface topography may be used to safely monitor the spine for non-ambulant CP children. Results show similar or improved trends to previous comparisons with idiopathic scoliosis. Ovadia (2007) showed an interobserver mean difference of 6.3 ± 4.9° using an Ortelius800TM system. Thometz (2000) showed mean differences between Cobb and Q-angle ranging from 1.1–12.6 ± 4.9–10.2°. Further research is needed for the user group described in this study with larger spinal curves.
