Literature DB >> 15636557

Long-term outcome after implantation of the Prestige I disc in an end-stage indication: 4-year results from a pilot study.

James T Robertson1, Newton H Metcalf.   

Abstract

OBJECT: The long-term function of an artificial cervical disc device is critical to its clinical success. The Prestige I Cervical Disc System has been used clinically since June 1998, and long-term results can now begin to be assessed. The authors conducted clinical and radiographic examinations at 3 and 4 years postoperatively to evaluate the longterm performance of the Prestige I device.
METHODS: A pilot trial was initiated in which the Prestige I disc was implanted in a cohort of patients with end-stage disease, who often had a history of multiple previous fusion procedures. All patients were followed according to a standardized clinical and radiographic protocol until 2 years postoperatively. Outcome measures included the Short Form-36 (SF-36) and Neck Disability Index (NDI) questionnaires, neurological status, and radiographic status. To evaluate the long-term function of the device, Ethics Committee approval was obtained to assess the patients at 3 and 4 years postoperatively. All patients were contacted, and after signing an additional informed consent document, were reevaluated according to the standardized protocol. Of the 17 patients in the original cohort, 13 were evaluated at 3 years and 14 were evaluated at 4 years postoperatively. Clinical outcome measures including the NDI and SF-36 showed good improvement, especially when the endstage nature of the disease is considered. Radiographic analysis showed that the Prestige I disc maintained motion at the treated segment at 3 and 4 years postoperatively.
CONCLUSIONS: In this report the authors demonstrate the clinical viability of the Prestige I cervical disc system at long-term postoperative intervals, even in the more severe biomechanical environment of end-stage disease.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15636557     DOI: 10.3171/foc.2004.17.3.10

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neurosurg Focus        ISSN: 1092-0684            Impact factor:   4.047


  18 in total

Review 1.  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

2.  Assessment of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Artifact Following Cervical Total Disc Arthroplasty.

Authors:  Amir H Fayyazi; Jennifer Taormina; David Svach; Jeff Stein; Nathaniel R Ordway
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2015-07-14

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.  Parameters that effect spine biomechanics following cervical disc replacement.

Authors:  Vijay K Goel; Ahmad Faizan; Vivek Palepu; Sanghita Bhattacharya
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-05-20       Impact factor: 3.134

6.  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

7.  Operated and adjacent segment motions for fusion versus cervical arthroplasty: a pilot study.

Authors:  Tomoya Terai; Ahmad Faizan; Koichi Sairyo; Vijay K Goel
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 8.  Multi-level cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) versus single-level CDA for the treatment of cervical disc diseases: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Hua Zhao; Lei Cheng; Yong Hou; Yi Liu; Ben Liu; Jyoti Joshi Mundra; Lin Nie
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2014-06-25       Impact factor: 3.134

9.  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

10.  Clinical and radiographic outcomes of dynamic cervical implant replacement for treatment of single-level degenerative cervical disc disease: a 24-month follow-up.

Authors:  Lei Wang; Yue-ming Song; Li-ming Liu; Hao Liu; Tao Li
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2014-01-29       Impact factor: 3.134

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.