Literature DB >> 17413473

Magnetic resonance imaging clarity of the Bryan, Prodisc-C, Prestige LP, and PCM cervical arthroplasty devices.

Lali H S Sekhon1, Neil Duggal, James J Lynch, Regis W Haid, John G Heller, K Daniel Riew, Kevin Seex, Paul A Anderson.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, controlled and double-blinded study on imaging of artificial discs.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to compare postoperative imaging characteristics of the 4 currently available cervical arthroplasty devices at the level of implantation and at adjacent levels. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Cervical arthroplasty is being performed increasingly frequently for degenerative disc disease and, in most cases, with frank neural compression. Unlike lumbar arthroplasty, performed mainly for axial back pain, decompression of neural elements may need to be confirmed with postoperative imaging after cervical arthroplasty.
METHODS: Preoperative and postoperative magnetic resonance imaging scans of 20 patients who had undergone cervical arthroplasty were assessed for imaging quality. Five cases each of the Bryan (Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Memphis, TN), Prodisc-C (Synthes Spine, Paoli, PA), Prestige LP (Medtronic Sofamor Danek), and PCM devices (Cervitech, Rockaway, NJ) were analyzed. Six blinded spinal surgeons scored twice sagittal and axial T2-weighted images using the Jarvik 4-point scale. Statistical analysis was performed comparing quality before surgery and after disc implantation at the operated and adjacent levels and between implant types. RESULTS.: Moderate intraobserver and interobserver reliability was noted. Preoperative images of patients in all implant groups had high-quality images at operative and adjacent levels. The Bryan and Prestige LP devices allowed satisfactory visualization of the canal, exit foramina, cord, and adjacent levels after arthroplasty. Visualization was significantly impaired in all PCM and Prodisc-C cases at the operated level in both the spinal canal and neural foramina. At the adjacent levels, image quality was statistically poorer in the PCM and Prodisc-C than those of Prestige LP or Bryan. CONCLUSIONS.: Postoperative visualization of neural structures and adjacent levels after cervical arthroplasty is variable among current available devices. Devices containing nontitanium metals (cobalt-chrome-molybdenum alloys in the PCM and Prodisc-C) prevent accurate postoperative assessment with magnetic resonance imaging at the surgical and adjacent levels. Titanium devices, with or without polyethylene (Bryan disc or Prestige LP), allow for satisfactory monitoring of the adjacent and operated levels. This information is crucial for any surgeon who wishes to assess adequacy of neural decompression and where monitoring of adjacent levels is desired.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17413473     DOI: 10.1097/01.brs.0000257547.17822.14

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)        ISSN: 0362-2436            Impact factor:   3.468


  14 in total

Review 1.  Cervical and lumbar spinal arthroplasty: clinical review.

Authors:  T D Uschold; D Fusco; R Germain; L M Tumialan; S W Chang
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2011-10-27       Impact factor: 3.825

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.  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

Review 4.  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

5.  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

6.  [Cervical arthroplasty using the Bryan Cervical Disc System].

Authors:  Friedrich Weber; Michael Detzner
Journal:  Oper Orthop Traumatol       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 1.154

7.  The future of spine surgery: New horizons in the treatment of spinal disorders.

Authors:  Noojan Kazemi; Laura K Crew; Trent L Tredway
Journal:  Surg Neurol Int       Date:  2013-03-19

8.  Spine imaging after lumbar disc replacement: pitfalls and current recommendations.

Authors:  Yohan Robinson; Bengt Sandén
Journal:  Patient Saf Surg       Date:  2009-07-20

9.  A case of cervical metastases in a patient with preexisting cervical disc replacement and fusion after 2-year symptom-free interval: when do we need interdisciplinary diagnostics?

Authors:  Markus Melloh; Thomas Barz
Journal:  Evid Based Spine Care J       Date:  2012-08

10.  Update on cervical disc arthroplasty: where are we and where are we going?

Authors:  Jorge J Jaramillo-de la Torre; Jonathan N Grauer; James J Yue
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2008-06
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.