Literature DB >> 19434431

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

J Beaurain1, P Bernard, T Dufour, J M Fuentes, I Hovorka, J Huppert, J P Steib, J M Vital, L Aubourg, T Vila.   

Abstract

The interest in cervical total disc replacement (TDR) as an alternative to the so-far gold standard in the surgical treatment of degenerative disc disease (DDD), e.g anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), is growing very rapidly. Many authors have established the fact that ACDF may result in progressive degeneration in adjacent segments. On the contrary, but still theoretically, preservation of motion with TDR at the surgically treated level may potentially reduce the occurrence of adjacent-level degeneration (ALD). The authors report the intermediate results of an undergoing multicentre prospective study of TDR with Mobi-C prosthesis. The aim of the study was to assess the safety and efficacy of the device in the treatment of DDD and secondary to evaluate the radiological status of adjacent levels and the occurrence of ossifications, at 2-year follow-up (FU). 76 patients have performed their 2-year FU visit and have been analyzed clinically and radiologically. Clinical outcomes (NDI, VAS, SF-36) and ROM measurements were analyzed pre-operatively and at the different post-operative time-points. Complications and re-operations were also assessed. Occurrences of heterotopic ossifications (HOs) and of adjacent disc degeneration radiographic changes have been analyzed from 2-year FU X-rays. The mean NDI and VAS scores for arm and neck are reduced significantly at each post-operative time-point compared to pre-operative condition. Motion is preserved over the time at index levels (mean ROM = 9 degrees at 2 years) and 85.5% of the segments are mobile at 2 years. HOs are responsible for the fusion of 6/76 levels at 2 years. However, presence of HO does not alter the clinical outcomes. The occurrence rate of radiological signs of ALD is very low at 2 years (9.1%). There has been no subsidence, no expulsion and no sub-luxation of the implant. Finally, after 2 years, 91% of the patients assume that they would undergo the procedure again. These intermediate results of TDR with Mobi-C are very encouraging and seem to confirm the efficacy and the safety of the device. Regarding the preservation of the status of the adjacent levels, the results of this unconstrained device are encouraging, but longer FU studies are needed to prove it.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19434431      PMCID: PMC2899658          DOI: 10.1007/s00586-009-1017-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Spine J        ISSN: 0940-6719            Impact factor:   3.134


  37 in total

Review 1.  Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for preventing heterotopic bone formation after hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  M Fransen; B Neal
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2004

2.  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

3.  Complications with cervical arthroplasty.

Authors:  Gwynedd E Pickett; Lali H S Sekhon; William R Sears; Neil Duggal
Journal:  J Neurosurg Spine       Date:  2006-02

4.  The new Frenchay artificial cervical joint: results from a two-year pilot study.

Authors:  Crispin C Wigfield; Steven S Gill; Richard J Nelson; Newton H Metcalf; James T Robertson
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2002-11-15       Impact factor: 3.468

Review 5.  Early clinical and biomechanical results following cervical arthroplasty.

Authors:  Neil Duggal; Gwynedd E Pickett; Demytra K Mitsis; Jana L Keller
Journal:  Neurosurg Focus       Date:  2004-09-15       Impact factor: 4.047

6.  Cervical arthroplasty in the management of spondylotic myelopathy: 18-month results.

Authors:  Lali H S Sekhon
Journal:  Neurosurg Focus       Date:  2004-09-15       Impact factor: 4.047

7.  Apophysial joint degeneration, disc degeneration, and sagittal curve of the cervical spine. Can they be measured reliably on radiographs?

Authors:  P Côté; J D Cassidy; K Yong-Hing; J Sibley; J Loewy
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1997-04-15       Impact factor: 3.468

8.  Roentgenographic findings of the cervical spine in asymptomatic people.

Authors:  D R Gore; S B Sepic; G M Gardner
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1986 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 3.468

9.  Preliminary clinical experience with the Bryan Cervical Disc Prosthesis.

Authors:  Jan Goffin; Adrian Casey; Pierre Kehr; Klaus Liebig; Bengt Lind; Carlo Logroscino; Vincent Pointillart; Frank Van Calenbergh; Johannes van Loon
Journal:  Neurosurgery       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 4.654

Review 10.  Adjacent segment degeneration and adjacent segment disease: the consequences of spinal fusion?

Authors:  Alan S Hilibrand; Matthew Robbins
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2004 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 4.166

View more
  27 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.  Cervical adjacent segment pathology following fusion: Is it due to fusion?

Authors:  Philip Rosenthal; Kee D Kim
Journal:  World J Orthop       Date:  2013-07-18

4.  [The relevance of the sagittal profile in cervical artificial discs].

Authors:  C Carstens; M Carstens; F Copf
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2011-08       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.  Clinical and radiological evaluation of cervical disc arthroplasty with 5-year follow-up: a prospective study of 384 patients.

Authors:  T Dufour; J Beaurain; J Huppert; P Dam-Hieu; P Bernard; J P Steib
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2019-07-30       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.  CORR Insights(®): Reoperation After Cervical Disc Arthroplasty Versus Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Todd J Albert
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2016-02-23       Impact factor: 4.176

9.  Five-year results of cervical disc prostheses in the SWISSspine registry.

Authors:  Emin Aghayev; Christian Bärlocher; Friedrich Sgier; Mustafa Hasdemir; Klaus F Steinsiepe; Frank Wernli; François Porchet; Oliver Hausmann; Aymen Ramadan; Gianluca Maestretti; Uwe Ebeling; Michal Neukamp; Christoph Röder
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-04-13       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.