Literature DB >> 12408387

Preliminary experience with the DOC dynamic cervical implant for the treatment of multilevel cervical spondylosis.

Michael P Steinmetz1, Ann Warbel, Melvin Whitfield, William Bingaman.   

Abstract

OBJECT: Despite the wide use of anterior cervical instrumentation in the management of multilevel cervical spondylosis, the incidences of pseudarthrosis and instrument-related failure remain high. The use of a dynamic implant may aid in the prevention of these complications. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the DOC dynamic cervical implant in the treatment of multilevel cervical spondylosis.
METHODS: The authors evaluated 34 cases in which anterior multilevel cervical decompression and fusion were performed using the DOC Ventral Cervical Stabilization System. Postoperatively, and at each follow-up visit, the sagittal angle and the degree of subsidence that developed were measured. Fusion rates and clinical outcomes were also evaluated. The mean postoperative sagittal angle was 14 degrees of lordosis. The mean change in the sagittal angle during the follow-up period was 0.4 degrees of lordosis. By 6 months postoperatively some subsidence had occurred in most patients, with no subsidence occurring in only 15%. By 3 months greater than or equal to 2 mm of subsidence was demonstrated in 61% of cases. The overall fusion rate was 91%. In the majority of patients (79%) symptoms were judged to be improved or resolved.
CONCLUSIONS: The DOC dynamic cervical implant permitted controlled subsidence and prevented progression of kyphotic deformity. There was one construct failure (related to a motor vehicle accident) and an overall fusion rate of 91%. The DOC implant is a safe and effective cervical construct for multilevel spondylotic disease.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12408387     DOI: 10.3171/spi.2002.97.3.0330

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Neurosurg        ISSN: 0022-3085            Impact factor:   5.115


  6 in total

1.  Cervical anterior transpedicular screw fixation. Part I: Study on morphological feasibility, indications, and technical prerequisites.

Authors:  Heiko Koller; Axel Hempfing; Frank Acosta; Michael Fox; Armin Scheiter; Mark Tauber; Ulrich Holz; Herbert Resch; Wolfgang Hitzl
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2008-01-26       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 2.  Systematic review of the effect of dynamic fixation systems compared with rigid fixation in the anterior cervical spine.

Authors:  Ricardo Rezende Campos; Ricardo Vieira Botelho
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-09-22       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  Can an Endplate-conformed Cervical Cage Provide a Better Biomechanical Environment than a Typical Non-conformed Cage?: A Finite Element Model and Cadaver Study.

Authors:  Fan Zhang; Hao-Cheng Xu; Bo Yin; Xin-Lei Xia; Xiao-Sheng Ma; Hong-Li Wang; Jun Yin; Ming-Hao Shao; Fei-Zhou Lyu; Jian-Yuan Jiang
Journal:  Orthop Surg       Date:  2016-08       Impact factor: 2.071

4.  Diagnosing cervical fusion: a comprehensive literature review.

Authors:  Nanin Sethi; James Devney; Holly L Steiner; K Daniel Riew
Journal:  Asian Spine J       Date:  2008-12-31

Review 5.  4- and 5-level anterior fusions of the cervical spine: review of literature and clinical results.

Authors:  Heiko Koller; Axel Hempfing; Luis Ferraris; Oliver Maier; Wolfgang Hitzl; Peter Metz-Stavenhagen
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2007-06-29       Impact factor: 3.134

6.  Is "mini-invasive" technique for iliac crest harvesting an alternative to cervical cage implant? An overview of a large personal experience.

Authors:  Aldo Spallone; Chiara Izzo; Stefania Galassi; Massimiliano Visocchi
Journal:  Surg Neurol Int       Date:  2013-12-17
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.