Prosthesis of multiple lumbar disc in a patient with degenerative disc disease

Luiz Pimenta; Mónica León Parra; Roberto Carlos Díaz Orduz; Fernando Bellera Alonso; Thomas Schafa Dan

2004, Number 6

<< Back Next >>

Acta Ortop Mex 2004; 18 (6)

Prosthesis of multiple lumbar disc in a patient with degenerative disc disease

Pimenta L, León P M, Díaz ORC, Bellera AF, Schafa DT

Full text

How to cite this article

Language: Spanish
References: 11
Page: 256-260
PDF size: 65.16 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Introduction. Experience with peripheral joint replacement has demonstrated, that motion preservation yields a better outcome than does arthrodesis. There are six important areas of concern with regard to the results of spinal arthrodesis: lack of pain relief, loss of motion, pseudoarthrosis, sagittal balance, adjacent segment disease and bone graft donor site, problems for which disc replacement may be relevant as an intervention. Case report. A 25-year-old female is presented, with previous L4-L5 and L5-S1 discectomies seven years ago. She had worsening low back pain and non significant radicular symptoms, and failed an aggressive program of non-operative therapy. The MRI showed degenerative changes at the L2-S1 discs, with an abnormal and 10/10 concordant discogram at L2-L3 and L3-L4. The patient history, physical examination and studies were consistent with symptomatic multilevel lumbar disc degeneration. A SB Charité III was colocated at L2 to S1 levels. The VAS and the Oswestry score incremented 90% and 80.4% respectively. The EBL was 200 cc, hospital stay: 2 days without complications. Discussion. When the degenerative disc disease is at multiple levels, and the lumbar disc replacement is well indicated, its colocation is feasible and represents an option to fusion.

REFERENCES
Boden S, Balderston R, Heller J, Hanley E, Zigler E: Disc replacements: this time will we really cure low back and neck pain? J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004; 86A(2): 411-422.
Bridwell K, Anderson P, Booden S, Vaccaro A: Special Update What’s new in spine surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004; 86A(7): 1587-1596.
Carlsson A: Assessment of chronic pain: Aspects of the reliability and validity of the visual analogue scale. Pain 1983; 16: 87-101.
Fairbank J, Davies J, Mbaot J: The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire. Physiotherapy 1980; 66: 271-273.
Fernström U: Arthroplasty with intercorporeal endoprosthesis in herniated disc and in painful disc. Acta Chir Scand 1966; 357: 154S-159S.
Gillet P: The fate of the adjacent motion segments after lumbar fusion. J Spinal Disord Tech 2003; 16(4): 338-345.
McAfee P, Fedder I, Saiedy S, Schucosky E, Cunningham B: SB Charité disc replacement. Report of 60 prospective randomized cases in a US center. J Spinal Disord Tech 2003; 16(4): 424-433.
Tropiano P, Huang R, Girardi F, Marnay T: Lumbar disc replacement. Preliminary results with Prodisc II after minimum follow-up period of 1 year. J Spinal Disord Tech 2003; 16(4): 362-368.
Ooij A, Cumhur F, Berbout A: Complications of artificial disc replacement. A report of 27 patients with the SB Charité disc. J Spinal Disord Tech 2003; 16(4): 369-383.
Zigler J, Anderson P, Boden S, Bridwell K, Vaccaro A: Specialty Update What’s new in spine surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2003; 85A(8): 1626-1636.
Zigler J, Burd T, Vialle E, Sachs B: Lumbar spine arthroplasty. Early results using the Prodisc II: a prospective randomized trial of arthroplasty versus fusion. J Spinal Disord Tech 2003; 16(4): 352-361.