Advertisement
ProCite
RefWorks
Reference Manager
BibTeX
Zotero
EndNote
-
1.
da Costa RC. Cervical spondylomyelopathy (wobbler syndrome) in dogs. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract. 2010;40(5):881–913.
-
2.
Steffen F, Voss K, Morgan JP. Distraction-fusion for caudal cervical spondylomyelopathy using an intervertebral cage and locking plates in 14 dogs. Vet Surg. 2011;40(6):743–752.
-
3.
Joffe MR, Parr WCH, Tan C, Walsh WR, Brunel L. Development of a customized interbody fusion device for treatment of canine disk-associated cervical spondylomyelopathy. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol. 2019;32(1):79–86.
-
4.
Zindl C, Litsky AS, Fitzpatrick N, Allen MJ. Kinematic behavior of a novel pedicle screw-rod fixation system for the canine lumbosacral joint. Vet Surg. 2018;47(1):114–124.
-
5.
Trotter EJ. Cervical spine locking plate fixation for treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy in large breed dogs. Vet Surg. 2009;38(6):705–718.
-
6.
Denny HR, Gibbs C, Gaskell CJ. Cervical spondylopathy in the dog—a review of thirty‐five cases. J Small Anim Pract. 1977;18(2):117–132.
-
7.
McKee WM, Butterworth SJ, Scott HW. Management of cervical spondylopathy-associated intervertebral, disk protrusions using metal washers in 78 dogs. J Small Anim Pract. 1999;40(10):465–472.
-
8.
Read RA, Robins GM, Carlisle CH. Caudal cervical spondylomyelopathy (wobbler syndrome) in the dog: a review of thirty cases. J Small Anim Pract. 1983;24(10):605–621.
-
9.
Mason TA. Cervical vertebral instability (wobbler syndrome) in the Doberman. Aust Vet J. 1977;53(9):440–445.
-
10.
Dixon BC, Tomlinson JL, Kraus KH. Modified distraction-stabilization technique using an interbody polymethyl methacrylate plug in dogs with caudal cervical spondylomyelopathy. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1996;208(1):61–68.
-
11.
Bruecker KA, Seim H, Blass CE. Caudal cervical spondylomyelopathy: decompression by linear traction and stabilization with Steinmann pins and polymethyl methacrylate. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc. 1990;26(6):677–683.
-
12.
Ellison GW, Seim HB III, Clemmons RM. Distracted cervical spinal fusion for management of caudal cervical spondylomyelopathy in large-breed dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1988;193(4):447–453.
-
13.
Queen JP, Coughlan AR, May C, Bennett D, Penderis J. Management of disk-associated wobbler syndrome with a partial slot fenestration and position screw technique. J Small Anim Pract. 1998;39: 131–136.
-
14.
McKee WM, Lavelle RB, Mason TA. Vertebral stabilisation for cervical spondylopathy using a screw and washer technique. J Small Anim Pract. 1989;30(6):337–342.
-
15.
Bergman RL, Levine JM, Coates JR, Bahr A, Hettlich BF, Kerwin SC. Cervical spinal locking plate in combination with cortical ring allograft for a one level fusion in dogs with cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Vet Surg. 2008;37(6):530–536.
-
16.
Voss K, Steffen F, Montavon PM. Use of the ComPact UniLock System for ventral stabilization procedures of the cervical spine: a retrospective study. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol. 2006;19(1):21–28.
-
17.
Hicks DG, Pitts MJ, Bagley RS, et al. In vitro biomechanical evaluations of screw-bar–polymethylmethacrylate and pin-polymethylmethacrylate internal fixation implants used to stabilize the vertebral motion unit of the fourth and fifth cervical vertebrae in vertebral column specimens from dogs. Am J Vet Res. 2009;70(6):719–726.
-
18.
Shamir MH, Chai O, Loeb E. A method for intervertebral space distraction before stabilization combined with complete ventral slot for treatment of disk‐associated wobbler syndrome in dogs. Vet Surg. 2008;37(2):186–192.
-
19.
Reints Bok TE, Willemsen K, van Rijen MHP, Grinwis GCM, Tryfonidou MA, Meij BP. Instrumented cervical fusion in nine dogs with caudal cervical spondylomyelopathy. Vet Surg. 2019;48(7):1287–1298.
-
20.
Harrop JS, Youssef JA, Maltenfort M, et al. Lumbar adjacent segment degeneration and disease after arthrodesis and total disk arthroplasty. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008;33(15):1701–1707.
-
21.
Yue W-M, Brodner W, Highland TR. Long-term results after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with allograft and plating: a 5- to 11-year radiologic and clinical follow-up study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005;30(19):2138–2144.
-
22.
Goffin J, Geusens E, Vantomme N, et al. Long-term follow-up after interbody fusion of the cervical spine. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2004;17(2):79–85.
-
23.
Eck JC, Humphreys SC, Lim T-H, et al. Biomechanical study on the effect of cervical spine fusion on adjacent-level intradiscal pressure and segmental motion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2002;27(22):2431–2434.
-
24.
Buckwalter JA. Aging and degeneration of the human intervertebral disc. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1995;20(11):1307–1314.
-
25.
Urban JP, Holm S, Maroudas A, Nachemson A. Nutrition of the intervertebral disc: effect of fluid flow on solute transport. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1982;(170):296–302.
-
26.
Mitchell RA, Innes JF, McNally D. Pressure profilometry of the lumbosacral disk in dogs. Am J Vet Res. 2001;62(11):1734–1739.
-
27.
Pfirrmann CW, Metzdorf A, Zanetti M, Hodler J, Boos N. Magnetic resonance classification of lumbar intervertebral disk degeneration. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001;26(17):1873–1878.
-
28.
Tremblay J, Brailovski V, Mac-Thiong J-M, Petit Y. Factors affecting intradiscal pressure measurement during in vitro biomechanical tests. Scoliosis. 2015;10(suppl 2):S1. doi: 10.1186/1748-7161-10-S2-S1
-
29.
Hofstetter M, Gédet P, Doherr M, Ferguson SJ, Forterre F. Biomechanical analysis of the three‐dimensional motion pattern of the canine cervical spine segment C4–C5. Vet Surg. 2009;38(1):49–58.
-
30.
Wilke HJ, Wenger K, Claes L. Testing criteria for spinal implants: recommendations for the standardization of in vitro stability testing of spinal implants. Eur Spine J. 1998;7(2):148–154.
-
31.
McNally DS, Adams MA, Goodship AE. Can intervertebral disc prolapse be predicted by disc mechanics? Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1993;18(11):1525–1530.
-
32.
Ramsey FL, Schafer DW. The Statistical Sleuth: A Course in Methods of Data Analysis. 3rd ed. Boston: BrooksCengage Learning; 2013:34–35.
-
33.
Chang U-K, Kim DH, Lee MC, Willenberg R, Kim S-H, Lim J. Changes in adjacent-level disc pressure and facet joint force after cervical arthroplasty compared with cervical discectomy and fusion. J Neurosurg Spine. 2007;7(1):33–39.
-
34.
Lee JK, Gomez J, Michelsen C, et al. In vitro biomechanical study to quantify range of motion, intradiscal pressure, and facet force of 3-level dynamic stabilization constructs with decreased stiffness. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013;38(22):1913–1919.
-
35.
Jiang S, Li W. Biomechanical study of proximal adjacent segment degeneration after posterior lumbar interbody fusion and fixation: a finite element analysis. J Orthop Surg Res. 2019;14(1):135.
-
36.
Abode-Iyamah K, Kim SB, Grosland N, et al. Spinal motion and intradiscal pressure measurements before and after lumbar spine instrumentation with titanium or PEEK rods. J Clin Neurosci. 2014;21(4):651–655.
-
37.
Lee CK, Langrana NA. Lumbosacral spinal fusion. A biomechanical study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1984;9(6):574–581.
-
38.
Rohlmann A, Neller S, Bergmann G, Graichen F, Claes L, Wilke HJ. Effect of an internal fixator and a bone graft on intersegmental spinal motion and intradiscal pressure in the adjacent regions. Eur Spine J. 2001;10(4):301–308.
-
39.
Kurowski P, Kubo A. The relationship of degeneration of the intervertebral disk to mechanical loading conditions on lumbar vertebrae. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1986;11(7):726–731.
-
40.
Newman HR, Bowles RD, Buckley MR. Viscoelastic heating of insulated bovine intervertebral disc. JOR Spine. 2018;1(1):e1002. doi: 10.1002/jsp2.1002
-
41.
Vergroesen P-PA, van der Veen AJ, van Royen BJ, Kingma I Smit TH. Intradiscal pressure depends on recent loading and correlates with disk height and compressive stiffness. Eur Spine J. 2014;23(11):2359–2368.
-
42.
Keyes DC, Compere EL. The normal and pathological physiology of the nucleus pulposus of the intervertebral disc: an anatomical, clinical, and experimental study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1932;14(4):897–938.
-
43.
Knell SC, Smolders LA, Steffen T, Pozzi A. Ex vivo computed tomography evaluation of loading position on morphometry of the caudal cervical intervertebral disk spaces of dogs. Am J Vet Res. 2019;80(3):235–245.
-
44.
Park J, Shin JJ, Lim J. Biomechanical analysis of disk pressure and facet contact force after simulated two-level cervical surgeries (fusion and arthroplasty) and hybrid surgery. World Neurosurg. 2014;82(6):1388–1393.
-
45.
Berkson MH. Mechanical properties of the human lumbar spine flexibilities, intradiscal pressures, posterior element influences. Proc Inst Med Chic. 1977;31(5):138–143.
-
46.
Gardner-Morse MG, Stokes IA. Physiological axial compressive preloads increase motion segment stiffness, linearity and hysteresis in all six degrees of freedom for small displacements about the neutral posture. J Orthop Res. 2003;21(3):547–552.
-
47.
Acaroglu ER, Iatridis JC, Setton LA, Foster RJ, Mow VC, Weidenbaum M. Degeneration and aging affect the tensile behavior of human lumbar anulus fibrosus. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1995;20(24):2690–2701.
-
48.
Johnson JA, da Costa RC, Bhattacharya S, Goel V, Allen MJ. Kinematic motion patterns of the cranial and caudal canine cervical spine. Vet Surg. 2011;40(6):720–727.
-
49.
Koehler CL, Stover SM, LeCouteur RA, Schulz KS, Hawkins DA. Effect of a ventral slot procedure and of smooth or positive-profile threaded pins with polymethylmethacrylate fixation on intervertebral biomechanics at treated and adjacent canine cervical vertebral motion units. Am J Vet Res. 2005;66(4):678–687.
Advertisement
Ex vivo study of the intradiskal pressure in the C6-7 intervertebral disk after experimental destabilization and distraction-fusion of the C5-C6 vertebrae in canine cadaveric specimens
Abstract
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate intradiskal pressure (IDP) in the C6-7 intervertebral disk (IVD) after destabilization and distraction-fusion of the C5-C6 vertebrae.
SAMPLE
7 cadaveric C4-T1 vertebral specimens with no evidence of IVD disease from large-breed dogs.
PROCEDURES
Specimens were mounted in a custom-made 6 degrees of freedom spinal loading simulator so the C5-C6 and C6-C7 segments remained mobile. One specimen remained untreated and was used to assess the repeatability of the IDP measurement protocol. Six specimens underwent 3 sequential configurations (untreated, partial diskectomy of the C5-6 IVD, and distraction-fusion of the C5-C6 vertebrae). Each construct was biomechanically tested under neutral, flexion, extension, and right-lateral bending loads. The IDP was measured with a pressure transducer inserted into the C6-7 IVD and compared between the nucleus pulposus and annulus fibrosus and across all 3 constructs and 4 loads.
RESULTS
Compared with untreated constructs, partial diskectomy and distraction-fusion of C5-C6 decreased the mean ± SD IDP in the C6-7 IVD by 1.3 ± 1.3% and 0.8 ± 1.3%, respectively. During motion, the IDP remained fairly constant in the annulus fibrosus and increased by 3.8 ± 3.0% in the nucleus pulposus. The increase in IDP within the nucleus pulposus was numerically greatest during flexion but did not differ significantly among loading conditions.
CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE
Distraction-fusion of C5-C6 did not significantly alter the IDP of healthy C6-7 IVDs. Effects of vertebral distraction-fusion on the IDP of adjacent IVDs with degenerative changes, such as those in dogs with caudal cervical spondylomyelopathy, warrant investigation.
Contributor Notes
Powered by PubFactory