medigraphic.com

2009, Number 2

<< Back Next >>

Rev Hosp Jua Mex 2009; 76 (2)

Tratamiento de la inestabilidad lumbar secundario a enfermedad discal con espaciador interespinoso Promise

González HFJ, de la Torre GDM, Ortiz RF, Guerrero BL, Padrón SN, Argoti TP

Language: Spanish
References: 30
Page: 61-67
PDF size: 500.84 Kb.


ABSTRACT

lntroduction. The knowledge of the instability of lumbar spine allows designing the specific treatment for every patient, the management of the new implants provides therapeutic individualized tools, minimally invasive and reversible, with wide margin of safety for the surgeon and patient. Objective. To value the evolution of patients treated surgically with interspinous spacer Promise in that diagnose lumbar inestability secondary at disc disease. Material and methods. Between 2007 2008 it surrendered to treatment to 1O patients, seven male, three female among 22 37 years old, with and without roots compression to level L4, L5. Results. The use of Promise implant proves to be good clinical results, low index of complications with immediate clinical improvement. Conclusions. The Promise spacer 1ike surgically treatment of the lumbar di se pathology it's an alternative technically easy, reproducible, with high clinical impact in young patients.


REFERENCES

  1. l. Fardon DF, Garfio Steven R (eds.). OKU Aoualizaciones en Cirugía Ortopédica y Traumatológica, Columna 2. Ars Medica.

  2. Campbell. Cirugía Ortopédica. lOa Ed. España: El Servier.

  3. Bono C, Vaccaro AR. lnterspinus process device in the lumbar spine. Journal of Spine Disordes & Techniques2007; 20(3): 255-61.

  4. Kapandji Al. Fisiología Articular. Tomo 2. 5a Ed. Panameñcana, Maloine.

  5. Postaccini F. Management of lumbar spinal stenosis. J Bone Joint Surg 1996; 78: 154-64.

  6. Catz JN, Dalgas M, Stucki G, lipson SJ. Diagnosis of lumbar spinal stenosis. Rheum Dis North Am 1994; 20:471-83.

  7. Acaroglu E R. latñd is JC, Setton LA, et al. Degeneration and aging affect the tencile behavior of human lumbar annulus fibrosus. Spine 1995; 20: 2690.70 l.

  8. Kent DI., Hainor DR, larson EV, Deyo RA. Díagnosis of lumbar s¡jnal stenosis in aduhs a meta-analysisof the accuracy da MR and myeolography. A)R Am J Roentgenol 1992; 158: 1135-44.

  9. Schlegel )0, Smith )A, Schleusener RL l umbar motion segment pathology adjacent thoracolumbar, lumbar and lumbosacral fusions. Spine 1996; 21 :970.81.

  10. Bernick S, Walker )M, Paule W). Age changes to the annulus fibrosus in human intervertebral discs. Spine 1991; 16: 520-4.

  11. Schiavone AM, Pasquuale G. The use of disc assistance prosth eses in degenerative lumbar pathology: lndications, techniqueand results. ltal J Spinal Disord 2003; 3:213-20.

  12. Etebar S, Cahill DW. Risk faoors for adjacent-segment failure following lumbar fixation with ñgid instrumentation for degenerative instability. J Neurosurg Spine 1999; 90: 163-9.

  13. Caserta S, Misaggi B, Peroni O, et al. Elastic stabilization combin ed with ñgid fusion: a prevention oí pathology oí th e border area. Proceeding.s of the 24"' National Congress of the ltalian SpineSociety. EurSpineJ 2001; 10:252-62.

  14. Chñstie SO, Song ]K, Fessler RG. Oynamic interspinous process technology. Spine 2005; 30(Suppl. 16): S73 -S78.

  15. Senegas J, Bemard P. tvlechanical supplementation by dynamic fixation in degeneráive intervertebrallumbar segments: The Wallis System. J Bone joint Surgery 1Brl2003; 85-B(St.ppl. 110: 286.

  16. Schmoelz W, Huber JF, Nydegger T, et al. Dynamic stabilization of the lumbar spine and its effects on adjacent segments. J Spinal Oisord Tech 2003; 16:418-23.

  17. Markwalder TM, Wenger M. Dynamic stabilization of lum· bar motion segments by use of Grafs ligaments: results with an average follow-up of 7. 4 years in 39 h igh ly seleoed, consecutive patients. Acta Neurochir 2003; 145:209-14.

  18. Swanson KE, l indsey DP, Hsu KV, et al. The effeds of an interspinous implant on intervertebral disc pressures. Spine 2003; 28: 263 2.

  19. Mulholland RC, Sengupta DK. Rationale, principies and experimental evaluation of the concept of son stabilization. Eur Spinej 2002; 11 (Suppl. 2): 198-205.

  20. Panjabi MM, Oxland TR, Yamamoto 1, Crisco Jj. Mechanical behaviorofthe human lumbar and lumbosacral spine as shown by thre~imensionalload~ isplacement curves. J Bone Joint Surg [AM)1994; 76A: 413-24.

  21. Kummar MN, jacquot F, Hall H. long-tem1 follow-up of functional outcomes and radiographic changes at adjacent levels following lumbar spine fusion for degenerative disc disease. Eur Spine j 2001; 10:309-13.

  22. Pitkanen M, Mann inen H. Sidebending versus flexionextension radiographs in lumbar spinal instability. Clin Radio! 1994; 49: 109-14.

  23. Adams MA. Dolan P. A technique for quantifying the bending moment aoing on the lumbar spine in vivo. J Biomech 1991; 24: 117-26.

  24. Shirazi-Adl A. Strain in fibers of a lumbardisc: Analysis of the role of lift ing in producing di se collapse. Spine 1989; 14: 96- 103.

  25. Fairbank ¡a , Mboat JC, Davies JBD, CYBrien )P. The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire. Physioth erapy 1980; 66:271 -3.

  26. Sengupta DK. Dynamic stabilization devices in the treatment of low back pain. Orthop Clin North Am 2004; 35: 4 3-56.

  27. Enker P, Steffe AD. lnterbody fusion and instrumentation. Clin Orthop 1994; 300:90.101.

  28. Tumer JA, Ersek M, Herron l, Deyo R. Surgery for lumbar spinal Stenosis. Anempted meta-analysis of the literature. Spine 1992; 17:1-7.

  29. Butler O, Trafimow )H, Anderson GB, et al. Discsdegenerate beforefacets. Spine 1990; 15: 111-3.

  30. Herron lO, Mangelsdorf C. l umbar spinal Stenosis: Results of surgical treatment. J Spinal Disord 1991; 4: 26-33.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com