Article Figures & Data
Figures
- Fig. 1
(A) Median moment-rotation response and (B) HAM of lumbar spine in flexion-extension. The HAMs of motion in B are represented by lines, the shading of which corresponds to the angular response in A.
- Fig. 2
Prototype TDR.
- Fig. 3
The implant motion profile as viewed from an isometric view (top) and sagittal view (bottom) for an idealized geometry. 6 flexures (A-F) guide the motion of the device while providing a torque-rotation response that mimics that of the intact functional spinal unit.
- Fig. 4
(A) Functional schematic of modified F1717, with center of pressure illustrated by dashed line, and (B) actual test setup.
- Fig. 5
Spine tester and environmental chamber.
- Fig. 6
Resultant prototype surface geometry without flexures or endplates, in the (A) sagittal and (B) frontal planes. (C) An isometric view of the prototype surface and flexure geometry without endplates. A photograph of the prototype with endplates is shown in Fig. 2.
- Fig. 7
Force-rotation response in isolated testing conditions as compared with predicted values.
- Fig. 8
Moment-rotation response of FSU before and after implantation, shown in (A) flexion-extension, (B) lateral bending, and (C) axial rotation. (A) Published flexion-extension QOM data for a first-generation “slidingfriction” TDR are included for comparison.
- Fig. 9
Measured response of integrated FSU and (A) predicted QOM when placed in its proper location and (B) predicted QOM when misplaced by ± 4 mm to its ideal location.
- Fig. 10
Measured displacement of a marker mounted on the superior vertebra of the FSU before and after implantation shown in flexion-extension.
In this issue
