Does core mobility of lumbar total disc arthroplasty influence sagittal and frontal intervertebral displacement? Radiologic comparison with fixed-core prosthesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: An artificial disc prosthesis is thought to restore segmental motion in the lumbar spine. However, it is reported that disc prosthesis can increase the intervertebral translation (VT). The concept of the mobile-core prosthesis is to mimic the kinematic effects of the migration of the natural nucleus and therefore core mobility should minimize the VT. This study explored the hypothesis that core translation should influence VT and that a mobile core prosthesis may facilitate physiological motion. METHODS: Vertebral translation (measured with a new method presented here), core translation, range of motion (ROM), and distribution of flexion-extension were measured on flexion-extension, neutral standing, and lateral bending films in 89 patients (63 mobile-core [M]; 33 fixed-core [F]). RESULTS: At L4-5 levels the VT with M was lower than with F and similar to the VT of untreated levels. At L5-S1 levels the VT with M was lower than with F but was significantly different compared to untreated levels. At M levels a strong correlation was found between VT and core translation; the VT decreases as the core translation increases. At F levels the VT increases as the ROM increases. No significant difference was found between the ROM of untreated levels and levels implanted with either M or F. Regarding the mobility distribution with M and F we observed a deficit in extension at L5-S1 levels and a similar distribution at L4-5 levels compared to untreated levels. CONCLUSION: The intervertebral mobility was different between M and F. The M at L4-5 levels succeeded to replicate mobility similar to L4-5 untreated levels. The M at L5-S1 succeeded in ROM, but failed regarding VT and mobility distribution. Nevertheless M minimized VT at L5-S1 levels. The F increased VT at both L4-5 and L5-S1. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study validates the concept that the core translation of an artificial lumbar disc prosthesis minimizes the VT.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".