Literature DB >> 15541683

Clinical experience with the new artificial cervical PCM (Cervitech) disc.

Luiz Pimenta1, Paul C McAfee, Andy Cappuccino, Fernando P Bellera, Helmut D Link.   

Abstract

The results of a pilot study performed between December 2002 and October 2003 in which 82 cervical disc arthroplasties were implanted in 53 patients are reviewed in detail. Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain scale, Neck Disability Index (NDI), and Treatment Intensity Gradient Test (TIGT) scales were evaluated as were static and dynamic radiographs. Significant improvents in all scales were seen postoperatively. One device migration of 4 millimeters was seen at 3 months and observed. Eighty percent of patients had a good or excellent result at one week, improving to ninety percent of patients being judged to have a good or excellent result by one month (Odom's criteria), which then remained at ninety percent at 3 months.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15541683     DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2004.07.024

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine J        ISSN: 1529-9430            Impact factor:   4.166


  19 in total

Review 1.  Prevalence of heterotopic ossification after cervical total disc arthroplasty: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Jian Chen; Xinwei Wang; Wanshan Bai; Xiaolong Shen; Wen Yuan
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-12-02       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 2.  Cervical spine alignment in disc arthroplasty: should we change our perspective?

Authors:  Alberto Di Martino; Rocco Papalia; Erika Albo; Leonardo Cortesi; Luca Denaro; Vincenzo Denaro
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-10-06       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  Disc replacement using Pro-Disc C versus fusion: a prospective randomised and controlled radiographic and clinical study.

Authors:  A Nabhan; F Ahlhelm; T Pitzen; W I Steudel; J Jung; K Shariat; O Steimer; F Bachelier; D Pape
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2006-11-14       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 4.  [Cervical disc prostheses].

Authors:  E W Fritsch; T Pitzen
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 1.087

Review 5.  Motion analysis of single-level cervical total disc arthroplasty: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Jian Chen; Shun-wu Fan; Xin-wei Wang; Wen Yuan
Journal:  Orthop Surg       Date:  2012-05       Impact factor: 2.071

6.  Local and global subaxial cervical spine biomechanics after single-level fusion or cervical arthroplasty.

Authors:  Michael A Finn; Darrel S Brodke; Michael Daubs; Alpesh Patel; Kent N Bachus
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-07-08       Impact factor: 3.134

7.  Does sagittal position of the CTDR-related centre of rotation influence functional outcome? Prospective 2-year follow-up analysis.

Authors:  P Suchomel; L Jurák; J Antinheimo; J Pohjola; J Stulik; H-J Meisel; M Čabraja; C Woiciechowsky; B Bruchmann; I Shackleford; R Arregui; S Sola
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2014-02-20       Impact factor: 3.134

8.  Adjacent segment degenerative disease: is it due to disease progression or a fusion-associated phenomenon? Comparison between segments adjacent to the fused and non-fused segments.

Authors:  Kyung-Jin Song; Byung-Wan Choi; Taek-Soo Jeon; Kwang-Bok Lee; Han Chang
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-06-08       Impact factor: 3.134

9.  Primary and coupled motions after cervical total disc replacement using a compressible six-degree-of-freedom prosthesis.

Authors:  A G Patwardhan; M N Tzermiadianos; P P Tsitsopoulos; L I Voronov; S M Renner; M L Reo; G Carandang; K Ritter-Lang; R M Havey
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2010-09-24       Impact factor: 3.134

10.  Intermediate clinical and radiological results of cervical TDR (Mobi-C) with up to 2 years of follow-up.

Authors:  J Beaurain; P Bernard; T Dufour; J M Fuentes; I Hovorka; J Huppert; J P Steib; J M Vital; L Aubourg; T Vila
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-05-12       Impact factor: 3.134

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.