Biomechanics of a Fixed–Center of Rotation Cervical Intervertebral Disc Prosthesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Past in vitro experiments studying artificial discs have focused on range of motion. It is also important to understand how artificial discs affect other biomechanical parameters, especially alterations to kinematics. The purpose of this in vitro investigation was to quantify how disc replacement with a ball-and-socket disc arthroplasty device (ProDisc-C; Synthes, West Chester, Pennsylvania) alters biomechanics of the spine relative to the normal condition (positive control) and simulated fusion (negative control). METHODS: Specimens were tested in multiple planes by use of pure moments under load control and again in displacement control during flexion-extension with a constant 70-N compressive follower load. Optical markers measured 3-dimensional vertebral motion, and a strain gauge array measured C4-5 facet loads. RESULTS: Range of motion and lax zone after disc replacement were not significantly different from normal values except during lateral bending, whereas plating significantly reduced motion in all loading modes (P < .002). Plating but not disc replacement shifted the location of the axis of rotation anteriorly relative to the intact condition (P < 0.01). Coupled axial rotation per degree of lateral bending was 25% ± 48% greater than normal after artificial disc replacement (P = .05) but 37% ± 38% less than normal after plating (P = .002). Coupled lateral bending per degree of axial rotation was 37% ± 21% less than normal after disc replacement (P < .001) and 41% ± 36% less than normal after plating (P = .001). Facet loads did not change significantly relative to normal after anterior plating or arthroplasty, except that facet loads were decreased during flexion in both conditions (P < .03). CONCLUSIONS: In all parameters studied, deviations from normal biomechanics were less substantial after artificial disc placement than after anterior plating.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".