medigraphic.com
ISSN 0185-3252 (Print)
Revista de la Asociación Médica del Centro Médico ABC

2012, Number 1

<< Back Next >>

An Med Asoc Med Hosp ABC 2012; 57 (1)

Experience of cervical arthroplasty with PCM prosthesis at the Neurological Center at the American British Cowdray Medical Center IAP

De Leo-Vargas R, Muñoz-Romero I, Arch-Tirado E, Eduardo GE, Téllez-Gutiérrez M, Carral-Robles LE, Collado-Corona MÁ

Language: Spanish
References: 14
Page: 25-31
PDF size: 351.27 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Introduction: Many patients with cervical disease obtain benefit from surgical treatment. Porous Coated Motion (PCM) prosthesis works as an full motion implant, and contributes to mantain the physiological biomechanics of the cervical spine. Objective: To describe the experience of PCM in cervical arthroplasty at the ABC Neurological Center. Method: A retrospective observational study with census sampling were done in patients from 22 to 54 years old, with a herniated disc at C3-C4 to C7-T1, with degenerative disc disease and failed conservative therapy, who undergone to cervical arthroplasty in the period of 2008-2010. Descriptive statistics testing, calculation of asymmetry and kurtosis, as well as Bayesian analysis were performed. Results: A total of 23 patients who undergo to colocation of one to three PCM prosthesis. Two prosthesis were implanted mainly in women (17.39%) versus men (4.34%). The most colocated implant was the small size (6.5) in 13 patients (56.52%) in 11 women and 2 men. Absence of pain was documented in 100% of cases. Conclusions: The application of PCM prosthesis seems to be useful, safe and effective as this preliminary results shows, which is recomendable to continue in order to consolidate this features.


REFERENCES

  1. Emery SE. Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: Diagnosis and treatment. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2001; 9 (6): 376-388.

  2. Todd AG. Cervical spine: degenerative conditions. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 2011; 4 (4): 168-174.

  3. Xie JC, Hurlbert RJ. Discectomy versus discectomy with fusion versus discectomy with fusion and instrumentation: A prospective randomized study. Neurosurgery 2007; 61: 107-117.

  4. Ishihara H, Kanamari M, Kawaguchi Y et al. Adjacent segment disease after anterior cervical interbody fusion. Spine J 2004; 4 (16): 624-628.

  5. Fountas KN, Kapsalaki EZ, Nikolakakos LG et al. Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion associated complications. Spine 2007; 32 (21): 2310-2317.

  6. Eck JC, Humphreys SC, Lim TH et al. Biomechanical study on the effect of cervical spine fusion on adjacent-level intradiscal pressure and segmental motion. Spine 2002; 27: 2431-2434.

  7. DiAngelo DJ, Robertson JT, Metcalf NH et al. Biomechanical testing of an artificial cervical joint and an anterior cervical plate. J Spinal Disord Tech 2003; 16: 314-323.

  8. Fountas KN, Kapsalaki EZ, Nikolakakos LG et al. Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion associated complications. Spine 2007; 32 (21): 2310-2317.

  9. Park DK, Lin EL, Phillips FM. Index and adjacent level kinematics after cervical disc replacement and anterior fusion: in vivo quantitative radiographic analysis. Spine 2011; 36 (9): 721-730.

  10. Traynelis VC. Cervical arthroplasty. Clin Neurosurg 2006; 53: 203-207.

  11. Pimenta L, McAfee P, Cappuccino A et al. Clinical experience with the new artificial cervical PCM (Cervitech) disc. Spine J 2004; 4 (6): S315-321.

  12. McAfee PC. The indications for lumbar and cervical disc replacement. Spine J 2004; 4: 177S-181S.

  13. Auerbach JD, Jones KJ, Fras CI, Balderston JR, Rushton SA, Chin KR. The prevalence of indications and contraindications to cervical total disc replacement. Spine J 2008; 8 (5): 711-716.

  14. Collado-Corona MA, de Leo-Vargas R, Sandoval-Sánchez V, Díaz-Hernández A, Gutiérrez-Sougarret BJ, Shkurovich-Bialik P. Neurophysiological monitoring in spinal cord surgery. Cir Cir 2009; 77 (5): 385-390.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com