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

Prevention of vertebral body–splitting fractures after multilevel ProDisc-L implantation

Humbert G. Sullivan, Rudolf Bertagnoli, Mark A. Nigogosyan, Nicholas R. Ladwig, Hayley L. Born, Molly M. Cerniglia, Hartmann Habbicht, Michelle A. Mathiason and Vicki L. McHugh
International Journal of Spine Surgery January 2012, 6 93-102; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsp.2011.12.004
Humbert G. Sullivan
aDepartment of Neurosurgery, Gundersen Lutheran Health System, La Crosse, WI
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Rudolf Bertagnoli
bDepartment of Radiology, Gundersen Lutheran Health System, La Crosse, WI
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Mark A. Nigogosyan
cSpine Center, St Elizabeth Klinikum, Straubing, Germany
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Nicholas R. Ladwig
dDepartment of Medical Research, Gundersen Lutheran Medical Foundation, La Crosse, WI
BS
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Hayley L. Born
dDepartment of Medical Research, Gundersen Lutheran Medical Foundation, La Crosse, WI
BS
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Molly M. Cerniglia
aDepartment of Neurosurgery, Gundersen Lutheran Health System, La Crosse, WI
PA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Hartmann Habbicht
bDepartment of Radiology, Gundersen Lutheran Health System, La Crosse, WI
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Michelle A. Mathiason
dDepartment of Medical Research, Gundersen Lutheran Medical Foundation, La Crosse, WI
MS
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Vicki L. McHugh
dDepartment of Medical Research, Gundersen Lutheran Medical Foundation, La Crosse, WI
MS
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: vlmchugh@gundluth.org
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

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

    PD-L components (A). PD-L device assembled (B). PD-L device implanted: lateral view (C) and anteroposterior view (D). One should note the keels and associated chisel cuts. (Images reproduced with permission of Synthes Spine, Inc.)

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

    Typical appearance of a VB-SF (patient 6, PD-L implants at L3-4, L4-5, and L5-S1). Coronal CT reconstruction of L4. The fracture connects the keel cuts in L4 (A). Coronal CT reconstruction through the midbody of L4 (B). The fracture connects the keels of adjacent PD-L implants. Axial CT reconstruction of L4 (C). The fracture extends from the anterior cortex to the posterior venous drainage.

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

    PH/CR/FC technique for PD-L device implantation. Drilling of pilot hole in superior vertebral body as seen on intraoperative lateral fluoroscopy (A). Anteroposterior diagram of implanted PD-L device with location of pilot holes and anterior cortex removal in heavy black overlay (B). Lateral diagram of implanted PD-L device with gray overlay depicting the location of pilot holes and anterior cortex removal (C). Comparison of standard US chisel (left) with fenestrated chisel (right) used in modified surgical technique (D). The reverse-cutting horizontal surfaces in the fenestrated chisel should be noted. (B and C, excluding the overlays, are reproduced with permission of Synthes Spine, Inc.)

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

    Patient 4, a 2-level PD-L case with a cranial-caudal anterior keel cut–to–anterior keel cut fracture. Intraoperative photograph taken after removal of the anterior periosteum between the keel cuts, showing a fracture connecting adjacent keel cuts (A). Axial (B) and coronal (C) CT reconstructions showing no evidence of fracture within the L5 vertebral body.

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

    Axial CT reconstruction of the L5 vertebral body from patient 5, who may have had an adverse outcome related to a VB-SF. Postoperative axial CT showing the VB-SF (A). Axial CT scan 10 days postoperatively, immediately after an accident with extreme vertical and rotational loading of the spine (B). One should note the fracture separation and the anterior wedge of bone that has been extruded. Axial CT scan 4 weeks after injury showing anterior healing or fragment migration with posterior fracture persistence (C). Axial CT scan 8 months after injury showing continued anterior fracture healing with sclerosis around the posterior portion of the fracture, which remains open (D).

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

    Postoperative CT scans of patient 7 centered on L5 with no evidence of fracture. Anterior coronal cut (A). Midcoronal cut (B). Midbody axial cut (C).

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

    Twelve-month follow-up CT scan of patient 6, a 3-level PD-L case operated on by the PHO technique, showing late formation of a vertical sclerotic band in the nonfractured L5 vertebral body on axial CT reconstruction (A). One should note the similarities between the sclerosis at this level and what is seen in the fractured L4 vertebral body at the level above. Twelve-month follow-up CT scan of patient 1 (B). One should note that the sclerotic development is seen only between 2 adjacent keels. Off-midline sagittal CT cut depicting absence of sclerotic band (C).

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

    Initial and final follow-up axial CT images of the multilevel PD-L cases with VB-SFs without clinical sequelae. In patients 6 (A and B), 3 (C and D), and 2 (E and F) with 12, 8, and 10 months’ follow-up, respectively, the fractures remain open and show sclerotic margins without evidence of bridging of the fracture. One should note the unhealed fracture in D, where a plate was placed across the fracture on the second postoperative day. On these images, the fractures are more obvious at late follow-up. In patient 1 (G and H), a 13-month follow-up axial CT reconstruction shows cortical bridging at the fracture and sclerosis around the fracture path.

Tables

  • Figures
    • View popup
    Table 1

    Patient-specific surgical and fracture details for group I, transitional, and group II patients

    Patient No.No. of levelsFusionPD-LTechniqueSitePrimary/assisting surgeonFracture type, level
    Group I
     12—L4-5, L5-S1United StatesUnited StatesH.G.S.VB-SF, L5
     22—L3-4, L4-5United StatesUnited StatesH.G.S.VB-SF, L4
     32—L4-5, L5-S1United StatesUnited StatesH.G.S.VB-SF, L5*
     42—L4-5, L5-S1United StatesUnited StatesH.G.S.Anterior keel cut–to–anterior keel cut†, L5
     52—L4-5, L5-S1United StatesUnited StatesH.G.S.VB-SF, L5
    T
     63—L3-4, L4-5, L5-S1PHOUnited StatesR.B./H.G.S.VB-SF, L4
    Group II
     72—L4-5, L5-S1PH/CR/FCUnited StatesH.G.S.—
     82—L4-5, L5-S1PH/CR/FCUnited StatesH.G.S.—
     92L5-S1L3-4, L4-5PH/CR/FCUnited StatesH.G.S.—
     102—L4-5, L5-S1PH/CR/FCUnited StatesH.G.S.—
     112—L3-4, L4-5PH/CR/FCGermanyR.B.—
     122—L3-4, L4-5PH/CR/FCGermanyR.B.—‡
     132—L3-4, L4-5PH/CR/FCGermanyR.B.—
     143—L3-4, L4-5, L5-S1PH/CR/FCGermanyR.B.—
     153—L3-4, L4-5, L5-S1PH/CR/FCGermanyR.B.—
     162—L3-4, L4-5PH/CR/FCGermanyR.B.—
     172—L3-4, L4-5PH/CR/FCGermanyR.B.—
     182—L3-4, L4-5PH/CR/FCGermanyR.B.—
    • Abbreviation: T, transitional patient operated on by PHO technique.

    • ↵* Plated at second surgery.

    • ↵† Plated during index surgery.

    • ↵‡ Incomplete radiologic data.

    • View popup
    Table 2

    Group I and II comparisons

    CharacteristicGroup I (n = 5)Group II (n = 11)P value (t test)
    Age [mean (range)] (y)42.8 (33 to 62)43.3 (27 to 53).909
    Male/female sex1/46/5.308
    BMI [mean (range)] (kg/m2)28.4 (26 to 30)25.9 (20 to 30).125
    T score [mean (range)]0.6 (0.9 to 2.0)0.0 (−1.5 to 2.7).491
    VBH [mean (range)] (mm)24.5 (22.8 to 26.4)27.4 (24.2 to 30.8)< .005
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.
Prevention of vertebral body–splitting fractures after multilevel ProDisc-L implantation
(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
Prevention of vertebral body–splitting fractures after multilevel ProDisc-L implantation
Humbert G. Sullivan, Rudolf Bertagnoli, Mark A. Nigogosyan, Nicholas R. Ladwig, Hayley L. Born, Molly M. Cerniglia, Hartmann Habbicht, Michelle A. Mathiason, Vicki L. McHugh
International Journal of Spine Surgery Jan 2012, 6 93-102; DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsp.2011.12.004

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Prevention of vertebral body–splitting fractures after multilevel ProDisc-L implantation
Humbert G. Sullivan, Rudolf Bertagnoli, Mark A. Nigogosyan, Nicholas R. Ladwig, Hayley L. Born, Molly M. Cerniglia, Hartmann Habbicht, Michelle A. Mathiason, Vicki L. McHugh
International Journal of Spine Surgery Jan 2012, 6 93-102; DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsp.2011.12.004
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

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

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • We Need to Talk about Lumbar Total Disc Replacement
  • 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

  • ProDisc-L
  • fracture
  • vertebral body
  • total disc replacement
  • lumbar disc arthroplasty
  • complications

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