Literature DB >> 24136048

The M6-C Cervical Disk Prosthesis: First Clinical Experience in 33 Patients.

Sam Thomas1, Karel Willems, Luc Van den Daelen, Patrick Linden, Maria-Cristina Ciocci, Philippe Bocher.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: Retrospective study.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the short-term clinical succesrate of the M6-C cervical disk prosthesis in primary and secondary surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Cervical disk arthroplasty (CDA) provides an alternative to anterior cervical decompression and fusion for the treatment of spondylotic radiculopathy or myelopathy. The prevention of adjacent segment disease (ASD), a possible complication of anterior cervical decompression and fusion, is its most cited--although unproven--benefit. Unlike older arthroplasty devices that rely on a ball-and-socket-type design, the M6-C cervical disk prosthesis represents a new generation of unconstrained implants, developed to achieve better restoration of natural segmental biomechanics. This device should therefore optimize clinical performance of CDA and reduce ASD.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients had preoperative computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging and postoperative x-rays. Clinical outcome was assessed using the Neck Disability Index, a Visual Analog Scale, and the SF-36 questionnaire. Patients were asked about overall satisfaction and whether they would have the surgery again.
RESULTS: Thirty-three patients were evaluated 17.1 months after surgery, on average. Nine patients had a history of cervical interventions. Results for Neck Disability Index, Visual Analog Scale, and SF-36 were significantly better among patients who had undergone primary surgery. In this group, 87.5% of patients reported a good or excellent result and 91.7% would have the procedure again. In contrast, all 4 device-related complications occurred in the small group of patients who had secondary surgery.
CONCLUSIONS: The M6-C prosthesis appears to be a valuable addition to the CDA armatorium. It generates very good results in patients undergoing primary surgery, although its use in secondary surgery should be avoided. Longer follow-up is needed to determine to what measure this device can prevent ASD.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 24136048     DOI: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000000025

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Spine Surg        ISSN: 2380-0186            Impact factor:   1.876


  7 in total

Review 1.  Cervical disc arthroplasty: tips and tricks.

Authors:  Melvin C Makhni; Joseph A Osorio; Paul J Park; Joseph M Lombardi; Kiehyun Daniel Riew
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2018-12-05       Impact factor: 3.075

2.  M6-C cervical disc replacement failure associated with late onset infection.

Authors:  Mary-Anne M Xia; Mark J Winder
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2019-12

Review 3.  The Spine: A Strong, Stable, and Flexible Structure with Biomimetics Potential.

Authors:  Fabio Galbusera; Tito Bassani
Journal:  Biomimetics (Basel)       Date:  2019-08-30

4.  A Retrospective Review of Radiographic and Clinical Findings from the M6 Cervical Prosthesis.

Authors:  İsmail Oltulu; Özgür Korkmaz; Ender Sarıoğlu; Mehmet Aydoğan
Journal:  Asian Spine J       Date:  2019-08-20

5.  Comparison of in vivo kinematic and radiological parameters of three cervical disc prostheses.

Authors:  Nicholas Chang; Ralph Mobbs; Nicholas Hui; Henry Lin
Journal:  J Craniovertebr Junction Spine       Date:  2022-03-09

6.  Catastrophic delayed cervical arthroplasty failure: illustrative case.

Authors:  Diego A Carrera; Christian B Ricks
Journal:  J Neurosurg Case Lessons       Date:  2022-03-14

7.  Comparison of M6-C and Mobi-C cervical total disc replacement for cervical degenerative disc disease in adults.

Authors:  Nicholas Hui; Kevin Phan; Jack Kerferd; Meiyi Lee; Ralph J Mobbs
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2019-12
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.