Literature DB >> 21416380

Nucleus disc arthroplasty with the NUBAC™ device: 2-year clinical experience.

M Balsano1, A Zachos, A Ruggiu, F Barca, P Tranquilli-Leali, C Doria.   

Abstract

Low back pain (LBP) due to degenerative disc disease (DDD) is a common condition that can be treated along a continuum of care: from conservative therapies to several surgical choices. Nucleus arthroplasty is an emerging technology that could potentially fill part of the gap in the spine continuum of care. The introduction of recent technologies that allow the replacement of the degenerated disc nucleus using prosthetic devices may be considered an additional therapeutic tool that can be used by the surgeon in selected cases of LBP due to DDD. Nucleus arthroplasties are designed to treat early stages of DDD, which are one of the most common spinal disorders in the population under 65 years of age. NUBAC™ is the first articulating nucleus disc prosthesis, designed to optimally respect the lumbar anatomy, kinematics, and biomechanics, constructed in unique two-piece manufactured from polyetheretherketone (PEEK) with an inner ball/socket articulation. The optimal indications for NUBAC™ implantation are: disc height >5 mm, degenerative disc changes at an early stage (Pfirmann 2, 3), single level affection, integrity of posterior facet joints, lack of local anatomical contraindication, failure of conservative treatment for at least 6 months. From December 2006 to January 2009, a total of 39 patients underwent nucleus disc arthroplasty with NUBAC™ device. 22 cases have 2-year follow up. There have been no major intra-operative or post-operative vascular or neurological complications in this series. The data showed that there were significant decreases in both Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) after the procedure, with a meaningful improvement of symptoms in all patients. Although preliminary, the initial results are encouraging. The absence of any major intra-operative and post-operative complications supports the design rationale of the NUBAC™, being less invasive comparing to total disc replacement (TDA) and with a low rate of surgical risk. The effectiveness of data as seen in 2-year follow-up on both VAS and ODI have also suggested that the NUBAC™ could be considered a viable treatment option for patients with LBP caused by DDD.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21416380      PMCID: PMC3087035          DOI: 10.1007/s00586-011-1752-3

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


  15 in total

Review 1.  New technologies in spine: nucleus replacement.

Authors:  Qi-Bin Bao; Hansen A Yuan
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2002-06-01       Impact factor: 3.468

2.  The Anterolateral TransPsoatic Approach (ALPA): a new technique for implanting prosthetic disc-nucleus devices.

Authors:  Rudolph Bertagnoli; R J Vazquez
Journal:  J Spinal Disord Tech       Date:  2003-08

3.  Design of an intervertebral disc prosthesis.

Authors:  T P Hedman; J P Kostuik; G R Fernie; W G Hellier
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1991-06       Impact factor: 3.468

4.  Threaded titanium cages for lumbar interbody fusions.

Authors:  C D Ray
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1997-03-15       Impact factor: 3.468

Review 5.  Intervertebral disc prosthesis. Results and prospects for the year 2000.

Authors:  J P Lemaire; W Skalli; F Lavaste; A Templier; F Mendes; A Diop; V Sauty; E Laloux
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1997-04       Impact factor: 4.176

6.  Accelerated degeneration of the segment adjacent to a lumbar fusion.

Authors:  C K Lee
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1988-03       Impact factor: 3.468

7.  Extreme Lateral Interbody Fusion (XLIF): a novel surgical technique for anterior lumbar interbody fusion.

Authors:  Burak M Ozgur; Henry E Aryan; Luiz Pimenta; William R Taylor
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2006 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 4.166

8.  Artificial disc replacement. Preliminary report with a 3-year minimum follow-up.

Authors:  P Enker; A Steffee; C Mcmillin; L Keppler; R Biscup; S Miller
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1993-06-15       Impact factor: 3.468

9.  Development of a prosthetic intervertebral disc.

Authors:  C K Lee; N A Langrana; J R Parsons; M C Zimmerman
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1991-06       Impact factor: 3.468

10.  Long-term follow-up of lower lumbar fusion patients.

Authors:  T R Lehmann; K F Spratt; J E Tozzi; J N Weinstein; S J Reinarz; G Y el-Khoury; H Colby
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1987-03       Impact factor: 3.468

View more
  6 in total

1.  Assessment of epidural versus intradiscal biocompatibility of PEEK implant debris: an in vivo rabbit model.

Authors:  Nadim J Hallab; Qi-Bin Bao; Tim Brown
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-08-31       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Current concepts on spinal arthrodesis in degenerative disorders of the lumbar spine.

Authors:  Marios G Lykissas; Alexander Aichmair
Journal:  World J Clin Cases       Date:  2013-04-16       Impact factor: 1.337

Review 3.  Spinal motion preservation surgery: indications and applications.

Authors:  Ioannis D Gelalis; Dimitrios V Papadopoulos; Dionysios K Giannoulis; Andreas G Tsantes; Anastasios V Korompilias
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2017-10-06

4.  PEEK-OPTIMA as an alternative to cobalt chrome in the femoral component of total knee replacement: A preliminary study.

Authors:  Raelene M Cowie; Adam Briscoe; John Fisher; Louise M Jennings
Journal:  Proc Inst Mech Eng H       Date:  2016-09-27       Impact factor: 1.617

5.  Finite Element Analysis of a Bionate Ring-Shaped Customized Lumbar Disc Nucleus Prosthesis.

Authors:  Amparo Vanaclocha-Saiz; Vicente Vanaclocha; Carlos M Atienza; Pablo Clavel; Pablo Jorda-Gomez; Carlos Barrios; Leyre Vanaclocha
Journal:  ACS Appl Bio Mater       Date:  2021-12-14

6.  Single level discectomy with and without disc prosthesis: A comparative study of 114 patients.

Authors:  Tayfun Çakir; Mürteza Çakir; Hilmi Önder Okay; Coşkun Yolaş; Osman Tanriverdi; Muhammed Ömeroğlu; Yusuf Kemal Arslan
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2018-12       Impact factor: 1.817

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.