Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Advance Online Publication
    • Archive
  • About Us
    • About ISASS
    • About the Journal
    • Author Instructions
    • Editorial Board
    • Reviewer Guidelines & Publication Criteria
  • More
    • Advertise
    • Subscribe
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
  • Join Us
  • Reprints & Permissions
  • Sponsored Content
  • Other Publications
    • ijss

User menu

  • My alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
International Journal of Spine Surgery
  • My alerts
International Journal of Spine Surgery

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Advance Online Publication
    • Archive
  • About Us
    • About ISASS
    • About the Journal
    • Author Instructions
    • Editorial Board
    • Reviewer Guidelines & Publication Criteria
  • More
    • Advertise
    • Subscribe
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
  • Join Us
  • Reprints & Permissions
  • Sponsored Content
  • Follow ijss on Twitter
  • Visit ijss on Facebook
Research ArticleFull Length Article
Open Access

Comparison of in vivo and simulator-retrieved metal-on-metal cervical disc replacements

Steven M. Kurtz, Lauren Ciccarelli, Megan L. Harper, Ryan Siskey, Jacob Shorez and Frank W. Chan
International Journal of Spine Surgery January 2012, 6 145-156; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsp.2012.03.002
Steven M. Kurtz
aExponent, Inc., Philadelphia, PA
bDrexel University, Philadelphia, PA
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: skurtz@exponent.com
Lauren Ciccarelli
aExponent, Inc., Philadelphia, PA
MS
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Megan L. Harper
cMedtronic, Memphis, TN
MASc
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ryan Siskey
aExponent, Inc., Philadelphia, PA
bDrexel University, Philadelphia, PA
MS
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jacob Shorez
cMedtronic, Memphis, TN
MS
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Frank W. Chan
cMedtronic, Memphis, TN
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Fig. 1
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 1

    Laveen wear test machine.

  • Fig. 2
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 2

    Schematic of the wear tests. Wear test I was conducted with 5 MC of coupled lateral bending (LB) and axial rotation (AR), followed by 10 MC of flexion-extension (FE). Wear test II was performed in the reverse order, with 10 MC of FE, followed by 5 MC of coupled motion.

  • Fig. 3
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 3

    Photomicrograph of inferior (trough) component after 0.5 and 5.0 MC of in vitro wear testing in coupled motion.

  • Fig. 4
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 4

    Mean volume loss (in cubic millimeters) as a function of the number of cycles for samples undergoing lateral bending and axial rotation followed by flexion-extension (n = 3 samples). The wear rate for lateral bending and axial rotation was 0.760 mm3/MC (R 2 = 0.95), and the wear rate for flexion-extension was 0.059 mm3/MC (R 2 = 0.96).

  • Fig. 5
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 5

    Mean volume loss (in cubic millimeters) as a function of the number of cycles for samples undergoing flexion-extension followed by lateral bending and axial rotation (n = 3 samples). The wear rate for flexionextension was 0.004 mm3/MC (R 2 = 0.64), and the wear rate for lateral bending and axial rotation was 0.720 mm3/MC (R 2 = 0.97).

  • Fig. 6
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 6

    Photomicrographs of PRESTIGE® I and II retrievals. The wear scar on the bearing surface has been highlighted in blue for each retrieval.

  • Fig. 7
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 7

    Photomicrographs of PRESTIGE® retrievals. The wear scar on the bearing surface has been highlighted in blue for each retrieval, when discernible.

  • Fig. 8
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 8

    Composite wear maps of the inferior and superior components, illustrating the variability in the size and extent of the wear scar for (A) in vitro wear-tested components (n = 3) at 15 MC after wear test I (Fig. 1) and (B) explanted components (n = 10).

  • Fig. 9
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 9

    (A) Photomicrographs and SEM micrographs of the superior (spherical) component at 15 MC after wear test I (Fig. 1). (B) Photomicrographs and SEM micrographs of an explanted, superior (spherical) component after 0.7 years in vivo.

  • Fig. 10
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 10

    Scanning electron microscopy of surface deposits on a retrieved screw head and screw hole: (A) screw head (20× magnification), (B) screw head (100× magnification), (C) screw hole (20× magnification), (D) screw hole (100× magnification).

  • Fig. 11
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 11

    Anterior impingement in a component retrieved after 2.3 years in vivo. (A) Photomicrograph of entire component. (B) Detail of impingement region.

Tables

  • Figures
    • View popup
    Table 1

    Comparison of motion and loading profiles used and final consensus motions and loading published in ASTM F2423-05

    Flexion-extensionLateral bendingAxial rotationAxial load
    ASTM F2423-05±7.5°±6.0°±6.0°100 N
    Profile I (5 MC)±4.7°±3.8°49 N
    Profile II (10 MC)±9.7°148 N
    • View popup
    Table 2

    Clinical information for retrieved PRESTIGE® components

    ImplantImplant designAge at implantation (y)GenderPrimary diagnosisLevelYear of index surgeryYear of removal surgeryImplantation time (y)Revision reasonRevision reason category
    PRESTIGE 1PRESTIGE25FDisc herniationC6/C7200320040.8Pain in the neck, right shoulder, and right arm accompanied by decreased sensation in the right little finger; revised to anterior cervical fusion at C5 through C7; symptoms resolvedNeck pain
    PRESTIGE 2PRESTIGE41MLeft C6/C7 disc herniation;
    left C6 radiculopathy
    C6/C7200320041.2C6 radiculopathy; removal for adjacent-level fusion; revised to anterior cervical fusion; symptoms unresolvedRadiculopathy
    PRESTIGE 3PRESTIGE II38MUnknownC5/C6200220031.8Deep infection; revised to fusion with iliac crest bone; symptoms resolvedInfection
    PRESTIGE 4PRESTIGE I31FUnknownC5/C6199819991.2Unresolved neck pain; revised to fusion with iliac crest bone; symptoms unresolvedNeck pain
    PRESTIGE 5PRESTIGE I42MUnknownC6/C7199820013.3Disc removed to facilitate fusion at adjacent level (C5/C6); revised with Brantigan cage fusion and Codman plating from C5 through C7; symptoms resolvedNone
    PRESTIGE 6PRESTIGE II43MUnknownC6/C7200120010.3Unresolved neck pain and posterior rigidity; improper device placement; revised to fusion with anterior cervical cage; outcome unknownNeck pain
    PRESTIGE 7PRESTIGE29MHNPC6/C7200420050.7Unresolved neck pain and headache; revised to anterior fusion; symptoms unresolvedNeck pain
    PRESTIGE 8PRESTIGE39MDisc herniationC5/C6200320052.3Continued symptoms (neck and arm pain with radiculopathy); revised to anterior cervical fusion at C4 through C7; outcome unknownNeck pain and radiculopathy; continued symptoms
    PRESTIGE 9PRESTIGE35MCervical spondylosisC5/C6200420062.2Neck pain; sporting injury resulting in HNP at C6/C7; revised to anterior cervical fusion at C5 through C7; outcome unknownNeck pain
    PRESTIGE 10PRESTIGE32MDisc degenerationC5/C6200420094.1Neck painNeck pain
    • Abbreviations: F, female; M, male; HNP, herniated nucleus pulposus.

    • View popup
    Table 3

    Wear surface characteristics for retrieved PRESTIGE® components

    ImplantInferior
    damage score
    Superior
    damage score
    Total
    damage score
    Screw
    fretting
    ImpingementSuperior wear scar
    (mean ± SD) (µm)
    Inferior wear scar
    (mean ± SD) (µm)
    RaWaRaWa
    PRESTIGE 1UnknownUnknownUnknownUnknownUnknownNANANANA
    PRESTIGE 2224YesNo0.06 ± 0.010.02 ± 0.010.12 ± 0.040.05 ± 0.02
    PRESTIGE 3213YesYes0.12 ± 0.020.03 ± 0.010.09 ± 0.030.03 ± 0.01
    PRESTIGE 4224YesNo0.20 ± 0.180.06 ± 0.080.07 ± 0.030.01 ± 0.01
    PRESTIGE 5224YesYes0.11 ± 0.020.03 ± 0.010.13 ± 0.100.09 ± 0.08
    PRESTIGE 6224YesYes0.17 ± 0.040.06 ± 0.030.25 ± 0.110.08 ± 0.07
    PRESTIGE 7325YesNo0.05 ± 0.040.02 ± 0.020.04 ± 0.020.01 ± 0.00
    PRESTIGE 8112YesYes0.15 ± 0.070.08 ± 0.040.05 ± 0.000.02 ± 0.01
    PRESTIGE 9224YesYes0.13 ± 0.040.08 ± 0.000.13 ± 0.030.10 ± 0.06
    PRESTIGE 10224YesNo0.17 ± 0.040.16 ± 0.190.10 ± 0.050.11 ± 0.08
    • Abbreviations: NA, not available; Ra, average roughness; Wa, average waviness.

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

International Journal of Spine Surgery
Vol. 6
1 Jan 2012
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on International Journal of Spine Surgery.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Comparison of in vivo and simulator-retrieved metal-on-metal cervical disc replacements
(Your Name) has sent you a message from International Journal of Spine Surgery
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the International Journal of Spine Surgery web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Comparison of in vivo and simulator-retrieved metal-on-metal cervical disc replacements
Steven M. Kurtz, Lauren Ciccarelli, Megan L. Harper, Ryan Siskey, Jacob Shorez, Frank W. Chan
International Journal of Spine Surgery Jan 2012, 6 145-156; DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsp.2012.03.002

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Comparison of in vivo and simulator-retrieved metal-on-metal cervical disc replacements
Steven M. Kurtz, Lauren Ciccarelli, Megan L. Harper, Ryan Siskey, Jacob Shorez, Frank W. Chan
International Journal of Spine Surgery Jan 2012, 6 145-156; DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsp.2012.03.002
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Chromium and Nickel Concentrations in Subjects with a Stainless Steel Metal-on-Metal Cervical Disc Arthroplasty: Results from a Prospective Longitudinal Study with 7 Years Follow-Up
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Kyphoplasty versus vertebroplasty for painful osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures—which one is better? A systematic review and meta-analysis
  • Overtightening of halo pins resulting in intracranial penetration, pneumocephalus, and epileptic seizure
  • Retrospective cost analysis of cervical laminectomy and fusion versus cervical laminoplasty in the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy
Show more Full Length Article

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • cervical arthroplasty
  • total disc replacement
  • Biomechanics
  • Retrieval analysis

Content

  • Current Issue
  • Latest Content
  • Archive

More Information

  • About IJSS
  • About ISASS
  • Privacy Policy

More

  • Subscribe
  • Alerts
  • Feedback

Other Services

  • Author Instructions
  • Join ISASS
  • Reprints & Permissions

© 2025 International Journal of Spine Surgery

International Journal of Spine Surgery Online ISSN: 2211-4599

Powered by HighWire