Literature DB >> 16506475

Complications with cervical arthroplasty.

Gwynedd E Pickett1, Lali H S Sekhon, William R Sears, Neil Duggal.   

Abstract

OBJECT: Spinal arthroplasty is becoming more widely performed in the treatment of degenerative cervical disc disease. Although this new technology may offer benefits over arthrodesis, it also requires that the surgeon acquire new operative techniques, and new potential complications are introduced. To determine the incidence and distribution of perioperative complications, the authors analyzed their early data obtained in a series of patients treated with the Bryan Cervical Disc prosthesis.
METHODS: The authors prospectively recorded operative data, complications, and clinical and radiographic outcome data in all patients treated with Bryan prosthesis-based arthroplasty at two tertiary care centers since 2001. Patients underwent standard anterior cervical discectomy followed by one- to three-level arthroplasty. Ninety-six discs were implanted in 74 patients. The perioperative complication rate was 6.2% per treated level. In one patient a retropharyngeal hematoma developed, requiring evacuation. Neurological worsening occurred in three patients. Intraoperative migration of the prosthesis was observed in one two-level case, whereas delayed migration occurred in one patient with postoperative segmental kyphosis. In another patient with severe postoperative segmental kyphosis, revision was required with a customized lordotic prosthesis. Heterotopic ossification and spontaneous fusion occurred in two cases; motion was preserved in the remaining 94 prostheses. Partial dislocation of the prosthesis in extension occurred in one patient with preoperative segmental hypermobility, the first reported failure of a Bryan prosthesis. Twenty-five percent of patients reported neck and shoulder pain during the late follow-up period. There was a trend toward increased kyphosis of the C2-7 curvature postoperatively.
CONCLUSIONS: The Bryan prosthesis was effective in maintaining spinal motion. Major perioperative and device-related complications were infrequent.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16506475     DOI: 10.3171/spi.2006.4.2.98

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Neurosurg Spine        ISSN: 1547-5646


  46 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.  Effects of a cervical disc prosthesis on maintaining sagittal alignment of the functional spinal unit and overall sagittal balance of the cervical spine.

Authors:  Seok Woo Kim; Jae Hyuk Shin; Jose Joefrey Arbatin; Moon Soo Park; Yung Khee Chung; Paul C McAfee
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2007-08-25       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  Fusion versus Bryan Cervical Disc in two-level cervical disc disease: a prospective, randomised study.

Authors:  Lei Cheng; Lin Nie; Li Zhang; Yong Hou
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2008-10-28       Impact factor: 3.075

4.  Surgical outcome of cervical arthroplasty using bryan(r).

Authors:  Hong-Ki Kim; Myung-Hyun Kim; Do-Sang Cho; Sung-Hak Kim
Journal:  J Korean Neurosurg Soc       Date:  2009-12-31

5.  Assessment of adjacent-segment mobility after cervical disc replacement versus fusion: RCT with 1 year's results.

Authors:  A Nabhan; B Ishak; W I Steudel; S Ramadhan; O Steimer
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-01-08       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 6.  WITHDRAWN: Arthroplasty versus fusion in single-level cervical degenerative disc disease.

Authors:  Toon F M Boselie; Paul C Willems; Henk van Mameren; Rob de Bie; Edward C Benzel; Henk van Santbrink
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2015-05-21

7.  Motion analysis of dynamic cervical implant stabilization versus anterior discectomy and fusion: a retrospective analysis of 70 cases.

Authors:  Zhonghai Li; Huarong Wu; Jin Chu; Mozhen Liu; Shuxun Hou; Shunzhi Yu; Tiesheng Hou
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2018-09-07       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 8.  Does design matter? Cervical disc replacements under review.

Authors:  Michael D Staudt; Kaushik Das; Neil Duggal
Journal:  Neurosurg Rev       Date:  2016-07-27       Impact factor: 3.042

Review 9.  Full-endoscopic posterior foraminotomy surgery for cervical disc herniations.

Authors:  M Komp; S Oezdemir; P Hahn; S Ruetten
Journal:  Oper Orthop Traumatol       Date:  2018-01-09       Impact factor: 1.154

10.  Is cervical disc arthroplasty superior to fusion for treatment of symptomatic cervical disc disease? A meta-analysis.

Authors:  Si Yin; Xiao Yu; Shuangli Zhou; Zhanhai Yin; Yusheng Qiu
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2013-02-07       Impact factor: 4.176

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.