medigraphic.com
ISSN 2992-8036 (Electronic)
ISSN 2306-4102 (Print)
Órgano Oficial del Colegio Mexicano de Ortopedia y Traumatología

2012, Number 2

<< Back Next >>

Acta Ortop Mex 2012; 26 (2)

Comparison of three types of lumbar total disc arthroplasty. Four-year minimum follow-up

Zárate-Kalfópulos B, Bran-García M, Rosales-Olivarez LM, Alpizar-Aguirre A, Sánchez-Bringas MG, Juárez-Jiménez HG, Santillán-Montelongo A, Reyes-Sánchez A

Language: Spanish
References: 28
Page: 91-95
PDF size: 45.46 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Background: Total lumbar disc replacement was developed to avoid the drawbacks of arthrodesis. This procedure should be done cautiously due to the various already known complications. The purpose of this study is to assess the clinical and radiographic results after single-level lumbar arthroplasty with the Prodisc-L, Maverick and Charité prostheses at our service. Material and methods: A retrospective study was performed comparing the clinical and radiographic results of three groups of patients who underwent total lumbar disc arthroplasty from January 2000 to December 2007. Results: Twenty-one lumbar prosthetic surgeries were performed. The Prodisc device was used in 13 patients, the Maverick in 4, and the Charité in 4. After the application of the Stauffer-Coventry scale, 16 patients reported excellent results and 5 good results. The mean preoperative interbody height was 7.9 mm and the mean postoperative height was 12.91 mm. The mean differential angle in the dynamic films was 5.47° preoperatively and 4.61 postoperatively; the mean angle in neutral position was 13.38 preoperatively and 19.61 postoperatively. Conclusions: This study showed that the clinical result was good in all three groups. Mobility was better maintained with the Charité prosthesis compared to the Prodisc and Maverick devices. The three prostheses are appropriate for the treatment of lumbar degenerative disc disease.


REFERENCES

  1. Hadjipavlou AG, Simmons JW, Pope MH, Necessary JT, Goel VK: Pathomechanics and clinical relevance of disc degeneration and annular tear: a point-of-view review. Am J Orthop 1999; 28: 561-71.

  2. Cassinelli EH, Hall RA, Kang JD: Biochemistry of intervertebral disc degeneration and the potential for gene therapy applications. Spine J 2001; 1: 205-14.

  3. Martin MD, Boxell CM, Malone DG: Pathophysiology of lumbar disc degeneration: a review of the literature. Neurosurg Focus 2002; 13: E1.

  4. Frymoyer, JW: Lumbar disk disease epidemiology. Instr Course Lect 1992; 41: 217-23.

  5. Cakmak A, Yücel B, Ozyalcn SN, Bayraktar B, Ural HI, Duruöz MT, Genc A: The frequency and associated factors of low back pain among a younger population in Turkey. Spine 2004; 29: 1567-72.

  6. Ekman M, Johnell O, Lidgren L: The economic cost of low back pain in Sweden in 2001. Acta Orthop 2005; 76: 275-84.

  7. Weinstein, JN, Lurie JD, Olson PR, Bronner KK, Fisher ES: United States trends and regional variations in lumbar spine surgery: 1992–2003. Spine 2006; 26: 680-6.

  8. Postacchini F, Postacchini R: Operative management of lumbar disc herniation: the evolution of knowledge and surgical techniques in the last century. Acta Neurochir Suppl 2001; 108: 17-21.

  9. Rosales LM, Alpizar A, Miramontes V, Zárate B, Reyes SA: Estabilización dinámica interespinosa en disectomía lumbar. Seguimiento de cuatro años. Cir Cir 2010; 78: 495-9.

  10. Urrútia G, Kovacs F, Nishishinya MB, Olabe J: Percutaneous thermocoagulation intradiscal techniques for discogenic low back pain. Spine 2007; 32: 1146-54.

  11. Albee FH: Transplantation of a portion of the tibia into the spine for Pott’s disease. JAMA 2007; 57: 885-6.

  12. Schizas C, Tzinieris N, Tsiridis E, Kosmopoulos V: Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: evaluating initial experience. Int Orthop 2009; 33: 1683-8.

  13. Ahrens M, Tsantrizos A, Donkersloot P, Martens F, Lauweryns P, Le Huec JC, et al: Nucleus replacement with the DASCOR disc arthroplasty device: interim two-year efficacy and safety results from two prospective, nonrandomized multicenter European studies. Spine 2009; 34: 1376-84.

  14. Resnick DK, Watters WC: Lumbar disc arthroplasty: a critical review. Clin Neurosurg 2007; 54: 83-7.

  15. Kishen TJ, Diwan AD: Fusion versus disk replacement for degenerative conditions of the lumbar and cervical spine: quid est testimonium? Orthop Clin North Am 2010; 41: 167-81.

  16. Baur-Melnyk A, Birkenmaier C, Reiser MF: Lumbar disc arthroplasty: Indications, biomechanics, types, and radiological criteria. Radiologe 2006; 46: 768-78.

  17. David T: Long-term results of one-level lumbar arthroplasty: minimum 10-year follow-up of the Charité artificial disc in 106 patients. Spine 2007; 32: 661-6.

  18. Siepe CJ, Hitzl, W, Meschede P, Sharma AK, Khattab MF, Mayer MH: Interdependence between disc space height, range of motion and clinical outcome in total lumbar disc replacement. Spine 2009; 34: 904-16.

  19. Giordano CP, Nachwalter RS: Total disc replacement surgery. Spine Focus 2005: 1-4.

  20. Patel AA, Brodke DS, Pimenta L, Bono CM, Hilibrand AS, Harrop JS, et al: Revision strategies in lumbar total disc arthroplasty. Spine 2008; 33: 1276-83.

  21. McAfee PC, Cunningham BW, Hayes V, Sidiqi F, Dabbah M, Sefter JC, et al: Biomechanical analysis of rotational motions after disc arthroplasty: implications for patients with adult deformities. Spine 2006; 31: S152-60.

  22. Ching AC, Birkenmaier C, Hart RA: Short segment coronal plane deformity after two-level lumbar total disc replacement. Spine 2010; 35: 44-50.

  23. Cauchoix J, David T: Lumbar arthrodesis: results after more than 10 years. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot 1985; 71: 263-8.

  24. Galbusera F, Bellini CM, Zweig T, Ferguson S, Raimondi MT, Lamartina C, et al: Design concepts in lumbar total disc arthroplasty. Eur Spine J 2008; 17: 1635-50.

  25. Bertagnoli R, Kumar S: Indications for full prosthetic disc arthroplasty a correlation of clinical outcome against a variety of indications. Eur Spine J 2002; (Suppl 2): S131-S136.

  26. Siepe CJ, Mayer HM, Heinz-Leisenheimer M, Korge A: Total lumbar disc replacement different results for different levels. Spine 2007; 32: 782-90.

  27. Huang RC, Girardi FP, Cammisa FR Jr, Tropiano P, Marnay T: Long-Term flexion-extension range of motion of the prodisc total disc replacement. J Spinal Disord Tech 2003; 16: 435-40.

  28. Cakir B, Schmidt R, Mattes T, Fraitzl CR, Reichel H, Káfer W: Index level mobility after total lumbar disc replacement is it beneficial or detrimental? Spine 2009; 34: 917-23.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com