medigraphic.com

2008, Number 4

<< Back Next >>

Cir Cir 2008; 76 (4)

Clinical and radiological follow-up of Nubac disc prosthesis. Preliminary report

Alpízar-Aguirre A, Mireles-Cano JN, Rosales-Olivares M, Miramontes-Martínez V, Reyes-Sánchez A

Language: Spanish
References: 20
Page: 317-321
PDF size: 66.24 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Background: Lumbar arthroplasty is an alternative to fusion for the treatment of degenerative disc disease. The nucleus pulpous replacement preserves the biomechanical properties in the annulus and plates, conserving the lumbar motion. Our objective was to evaluate the feasibility and clinical and radiological findings at 3 months follow-up with the Nubac device.
Methods: Ten patients from the National Institute for Rehabilitation (INR, Mexico City) with degenerative disc disease were selected to participate in the study. They underwent discectomy with Nubac device with a follow-up period of 3 months. Evolution was evaluated with the VAS and Oswestry scales.
Results: Five men and five women were included in the study (average age 41.6 years). Surgical approach was antero-lateral (4 patients), posterior (3 patients) and anterior (3 patients), VAS improved from 8.1 to 2.5 (p ‹0.05) and Oswestry scale improved from 58.2% to 24.2% (p ‹0.05). Disc height before surgery was 9.4 mm, and 3 months after it was 12.5 mm with no complications, migration, or subsidence.
Conclusions: Nubac prosthesis improved lumbar discogenic pain in a short time when evaluated by Oswestry and VAS scales. Disc height improved after a 3-month follow-up, but lumbar motion did not improve. No complications have been reported; however, a minimum follow-up of 4 years is needed to make a definite conclusion.


REFERENCES

  1. Vo AN, Kamen LB, Shih VC, Bitar AA, Stitik TP, Kaplan RJ. Rehabilitation of orthpaedic and rheumatologic disorders. 5. Lumbar spinal stenosis. Arch Phys Med Rehab 2005;86(suppl):69-76.

  2. Trumess E. Spinal stenosis: pathophysiology, clinical and radiologic classification. AAOS. Instructional course lectures 2005;54:287-302.

  3. Anderson PA, Rouleau JP. Intervertebral disc arthroplasty. Spine 2004;29: 2779-2786.

  4. Hochschuler SH, Ohnmeiss DD, Guyer RD, Blumenthal SL. Artificial disc: preliminary results of a prospective study in the United States. Eur Spine J 2002;11(suppl 2):106-110.

  5. Ghiselli G, Wang JC, Bhatia NN, Hsu WK, Dawson EG. Adjacent segment degeneration in the lumbar spine. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004;86:1497-1503.

  6. Harris RI. Acquired spondylolysis as a sequel to spinal fusion. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1963;45:1159-1170.

  7. Haung RC, Lim MR, Girardi FP. The prevalence of contraindication of total disc replacement in a cohort of lumbar surgical patient. Spine 2004;29:2538.

  8. Studer A. Nucleus prosthesis: a new concept. Reur Spine J 2002;11(Suppl 2):S154-S156.

  9. Bushell GR, Glosh P, Taylor TF, Akeson WH. Proteoglycan chemistry of the intervertebral discs. Clin Orthop 1977;129:115-123.

  10. Guyer RD, Ohnmeiss DD. Intervertebral disc prothesis. Spine 2003;28:15-23.

  11. Bertagnoli R. Continuum of care in degenerative disc disease. Back Up 2001;1:4-8.

  12. Wiltse LL, Rochio PD. Preoperative psychological tests as predictors of success of chemionucleolysis in the treatment of low back syndrome. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1975;57:478-483.

  13. Ray CD, Sachs BL, Norton BK, Mikkelsen ES, Clausen NA. Prosthetic disc nucleus implants: an update. In: Gunzburg R, Szpalski M, eds. Lumbar Disc Herniation. Philadelphia: Lippincott;2002.

  14. Tribus C, Belanger T. The vascular anatomy anterior to the L5-S1 disk space. Spine 2001;26:1203-1208.

  15. Martínez Lage JF. Clinical canal stenosis a cause of late neurological deterioration in patients with spina bifida. Surg Neurol 2001;56:256-260.

  16. Zeegers WS, Bohnen LM, Laaper M, Verhaegen MJ. Artificial disc replacement with the modular type SB Charite III: 2-years results in 50 prospectively studied patients. Eur Spine J 1999;8:210-217.

  17. Wiesel SW, Cuckler JM, Deluca F. Acute low back pain: an objective analysis of conservative therapy. Spine 1980;5:324-330.

  18. Ferström U. Arthroplasty with intercorporal endoprosthesis in herniated disc and painful disc. Acta Orthop Scand 1966;10(suppl):287-289.

  19. Szpalski M, Gunzburg R, Mayer M. Spine arthroplasty: a historical review. Eur Spine J 2002:11(suppl 2):S65-S84.

  20. Bertagnoli R, Schönmayr R. Surgical and clinical results with the PDN prosthetic disc-nucleus devices. Eur Spine J 2002;11(suppl 2):S143-S148.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com