Literature DB >> 29671017

[Degenerative cervical spine diseases: fusion vs. total disc replacement : What can be done when?]

T Pitzen, J Drumm1, C Berthold, G Ostrowski, U Heiler, M Ruf.   

Abstract

Motion preserving surgery within the cervical spine may be performed by special implants, for example, c spine disc prosthesis or total disc replacement (cTDR), or by simple decompression of the cervical nerve roots. However, also fusion surgery may be performed with good results. Here, we summarize indications as well as contraindications for motion preserving techniques and indications for fusion surgery. cTDR is indicated in special cases of soft disc herniation, especially in younger individuals without signs of myelopathy. Posterior decompression may be used as an alternative, especially if anterior surgery is not possible. If degeneration is severe, in the presence of kyphosis, severe canal encroachment, instability, and in cases of myelopathy, cervical spine fusion seems to be the better way.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Disc degeneration; Myelopathy; Spondylodesis; Surgical decompression; Vertebral column

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29671017     DOI: 10.1007/s00132-018-3562-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Orthopade        ISSN: 0085-4530            Impact factor:   1.087


  24 in total

1.  Vertebral body fusion for ruptured cervical discs.

Authors:  R B CLOWARD
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  1959-11       Impact factor: 2.565

2.  Lower cervical vertebrae and intervertebral discs; surgical anatomy and pathology.

Authors:  R FRYKHOLM
Journal:  Acta Chir Scand       Date:  1951

3.  Rate of adjacent segment disease in cervical disc arthroplasty versus single-level fusion: meta-analysis of prospective studies.

Authors:  Kushagra Verma; Sapan D Gandhi; Mitchell Maltenfort; Todd J Albert; Alan S Hilibrand; Alexander R Vaccaro; Kristin E Radcliff
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2013-12-15       Impact factor: 3.468

4.  Cervical spine disc prosthesis: radiographic, biomechanical and morphological post mortal findings 12 weeks after implantation. A retrieval example.

Authors:  Tobias Pitzen; Annette Kettler; Joerg Drumm; Abdullah Nabhan; Wolf Ingo Steudel; Lutz Claes; Hans Joachim Wilke
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2007-01-23       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  Complications with cervical arthroplasty.

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

6.  Fusion around cervical disc prosthesis: case report.

Authors:  Ronald H M A Bartels; Roland Donk
Journal:  Neurosurgery       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 4.654

Review 7.  Pathophysiology and natural history of cervical spondylotic myelopathy.

Authors:  Spyridon K Karadimas; W Mark Erwin; Claire G Ely; Joseph R Dettori; Michael G Fehlings
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2013-10-15       Impact factor: 3.468

8.  NuNec™ Cervical Disc Arthroplasty Improves Quality of Life in Cervical Radiculopathy and Myelopathy: A 2-yr Follow-up.

Authors:  Isobel Turner; David Choi
Journal:  Neurosurgery       Date:  2018-09-01       Impact factor: 4.654

Review 9.  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

10.  Comparisons of three anterior cervical surgeries in treating cervical spondylotic myelopathy.

Authors:  RuoFu Zhu; HuiLin Yang; ZhiDong Wang; GenLin Wang; MinJie Shen; Quan Yuan
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2014-07-10       Impact factor: 2.362

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.