Zuhtu Ozbek1, Emre Ozkara2, Ali Arslantaş2. 1. Department of Neurosurgery, School of Medicine, Eskisehir Osmangazi University, Eskisehir, Turkey. Electronic address: zuhtuozbek@gmail.com. 2. Department of Neurosurgery, School of Medicine, Eskisehir Osmangazi University, Eskisehir, Turkey.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to discuss the causes of implant migration after cervical arthroplasty with clinical cases. METHODS: The patients who underwent cervical arthroplasty operations in our department between 2006 and 2015 because of cervical disk disease were retrospectively analyzed. The patients who were determined to be symptomatic of implant migration were evaluated. RESULTS: Symptomatic implant migration was detected in 5 of 163 (0.3%) patients who underwent cervical disk arthroplasty, and these patients also underwent reoperation. In 4 patients who underwent reoperation, the prosthesis was removed, and an anterior fusion was made. The prosthesis was only removed in 1 patient. CONCLUSIONS: The following situations should be considered in the prevention of dislocation and migration of the implant in cervical arthroplasty: protection of the structure of the end plate, selection of the appropriate implant size, and proper surgical construction. In the preoperative period, computed tomography scan may be useful for determining the implant size and details of the bone structure. Foreign body reactions or postoperative trauma may be a rare and unpreventable reason for prosthesis dislocation despite all of the preoperative and perioperative measures and well-made prosthesis designs.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to discuss the causes of implant migration after cervical arthroplasty with clinical cases. METHODS: The patients who underwent cervical arthroplasty operations in our department between 2006 and 2015 because of cervical disk disease were retrospectively analyzed. The patients who were determined to be symptomatic of implant migration were evaluated. RESULTS: Symptomatic implant migration was detected in 5 of 163 (0.3%) patients who underwent cervical disk arthroplasty, and these patients also underwent reoperation. In 4 patients who underwent reoperation, the prosthesis was removed, and an anterior fusion was made. The prosthesis was only removed in 1 patient. CONCLUSIONS: The following situations should be considered in the prevention of dislocation and migration of the implant in cervical arthroplasty: protection of the structure of the end plate, selection of the appropriate implant size, and proper surgical construction. In the preoperative period, computed tomography scan may be useful for determining the implant size and details of the bone structure. Foreign body reactions or postoperative trauma may be a rare and unpreventable reason for prosthesis dislocation despite all of the preoperative and perioperative measures and well-made prosthesis designs.