首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
     


Footprint mismatch in total cervical disc arthroplasty
Authors:Martin Thaler  Sebastian Hartmann  Michaela Gstöttner  Ricarda Lechner  Michael Gabl  Christian Bach
Affiliation:1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Innsbruck Medical University, Anichstr. 35, 6020, Innsbruck, Austria
2. Department of Neurosurgery, Innsbruck Medical University, Anichstr. 35, 6020, Innsbruck, Austria
3. WIK, Spine Center Kettenbruecke, 6020, Innsbruck, Austria
4. St. Remigius Krankenhaus Leverkusen, An St. Remigius 26, 51379, Leverkusen, Germany
Abstract:

Purpose

Cervical disc arthroplasty has become a commonplace surgery for the treatment of cervical radiculopathy and myelopathy. Most manufacturers derive their implant dimensions from early published cadaver studies. Ideal footprint match of the prosthesis is essential for good surgical outcome.

Methods

We measured the dimensions of cervical vertebrae from computed tomography (CT) scans and to assess the accuracy of match achieved with the most common cervical disc prostheses [Bryan (Medtronic), Prestige LP (Medtronic), Discover (DePuy) Prodisc-C (Synthes)]. A total of 192 endplates in 24 patients (56.3 years) were assessed. The anterior–posterior and mediolateral diameters of the superior and inferior endplates were measured with a digital measuring system.

Results

Overall, 53.5 % of the largest device footprints were smaller in the anterior–posterior diameter and 51.1 % in the mediolateral diameter were smaller than cervical endplate diameters. For levels C5/C6 and C6/C7 an inappropriate size match was noted in 61.9 % as calculated from the anteroposterior diameter. Mismatch at the center mediolateral diameter was noted in 56.8 %. Of the endplates in the current study up to 58.1 % of C5/C6 and C6/C7, and up to 45.3 % of C3/C4 and C4/C5 were larger than the most frequently implanted cervical disc devices.

Conclusion

Surgeons and manufacturers should be aware of the size mismatch in currently available cervical disc prostheses, which may endanger the safety and efficacy of the procedure. Undersizing the prosthetic device may lead to subsidence, loosening, heterotopic ossification and biomechanical failure caused by an incorrect center of rotation and load distribution, affecting the facet joints.
Keywords:
本文献已被 SpringerLink 等数据库收录!
相似文献(共20条):
[1]、Michaela Gstoettner,Denise Heider,Michael Liebensteiner,Christian Michael Bach.Footprint mismatch in lumbar total disc arthroplasty[J].European spine journal,2009,18(1):118-118.
[2]、Gstoettner Michaela,Heider Denise,Michael Liebensteiner,Bach Christian Michael.Footprint mismatch in lumbar total disc arthroplasty[J].European spine journal,2008,17(11):1470-1475.
[3]、Chen J,Fan SW,Wang XW,Yuan W.Motion analysis of single-level cervical total disc arthroplasty: a meta-analysis[J].Orthopaedic surgery,2012,4(2):94-100.
[4]、Hallab N,Link HD,McAfee PC.Biomaterial optimization in total disc arthroplasty[J].Spine,2003,28(20):S139-S152.
[5]、Chen J,Wang X,Bai W,Shen X,Yuan W.Prevalence of heterotopic ossification after cervical total disc arthroplasty: a meta-analysis[J].European spine journal,2012,21(4):674-680.
[6]、Patel AA,Brodke DS,Pimenta L,Bono CM,Hilibrand AS,Harrop JS,Riew KD,Youssef JA,Vaccaro AR.Revision strategies in lumbar total disc arthroplasty[J].Spine,2008,33(11):1276-1283.
[7]、Fabio Galbusera,Chiara M. Bellini,Thomas Zweig,Stephen Ferguson,Manuela T. Raimondi,Claudio Lamartina,Marco Brayda-Bruno,Maurizio Fornari.Design concepts in lumbar total disc arthroplasty[J].European spine journal,2008,17(12):1635-1650.
[8]、Chen J,Wang X,Yuan W,Tang Y,Zhang Y,Wan M.Cervical myelopathy after cervical total disc arthroplasty: case report and literature review[J].Spine,2012,37(10):E624-E628.
[9]、Auerbach JD,Anakwenze OA,Milby AH,Lonner BS,Balderston RA.Segmental contribution toward total cervical range of motion: a comparison of cervical disc arthroplasty and fusion[J].Spine,2011,36(25):E1593-E1599.
[10]、申勇,张英泽,徐佳欣,王林峰,杨大龙,丁文元.Bryan颈人工椎间盘置换术失败原因分析[J].中华骨科杂志,2001,29(1):639-643.
[11]、申勇,张英泽,徐佳欣,王林峰,杨大龙,丁文元.Bryan颈人工椎间盘置换术失败原因分析[J].中华骨科杂志,2009,29(7).
[12]、申勇,张英泽,徐佳欣,王林峰,杨大龙,丁文元.Bryan颈人工椎间盘置换术失败原因分析[J].中华骨科杂志,2002,29(1):639-643.
[13]、申勇,张英泽,徐佳欣,王林峰,杨大龙,丁文元.Bryan颈人工椎间盘置换术失败原因分析[J].中华骨科杂志,2004,29(1):639-643.
[14]、申勇,张英泽,徐佳欣,王林峰,杨大龙,丁文元.Bryan颈人工椎间盘置换术失败原因分析[J].中华骨科杂志,2009,29(1):639-643.
[15]、申勇,张英泽,徐佳欣,王林峰,杨大龙,丁文元.Bryan颈人工椎间盘置换术失败原因分析[J].中华骨科杂志,2005,29(1):639-643.
[16]、Guérin P,Obeid I,Gille O,Bourghli A,Luc S,Pointillart V,Vital JM.Sagittal alignment after single cervical disc arthroplasty[J].Journal of spinal disorders & techniques,2012,25(1):10-16.
[17]、Scott C. WagnerDaniel G. Kang,MD,Melvin D. Helgeson,MD.Implant migration after Bryan cervical disc arthroplasty[J].The spine journal,2014,14(10):2513-2514.
[18]、人工颈椎间盘置换术的适应证与禁忌证[J].中国矫形外科杂志
[19]、Gerometta A,Rodriguez Olaverri JC,Bittan F.Infection and revision strategies in total disc arthroplasty[J].International orthopaedics,2012,36(2):471-474.
[20]、申勇,张英泽,徐佳欣,王林峰,杨大龙,丁文元.Bryan颈人工椎间盘置换术失败原因分析[J].中华骨科杂志,2000,29(1):639-643.
设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号