Endoprothesis of cervical intervertebral disks for treatment of diskal compressive myeloradiculopathy
Abstract
The rigid fixation of one or more levels of cervical spine in treatment of degenerative vertebral diseases may lead to development of adjacent level syndrome. The protheses of intravertebral disks preserving the mobility in spinal motion segment are placed for prevention of this complication.
Objective: to describe the decompression of spinal roots and (or) spinal cord with functional stabilization of spinal motion segments.
Material and methods: we analyzed indications and contraindications for placement of intervertebral disk prothesis «М6-С». Preoperatively the special attention must be paid for patient’s position on the table. The approach is needed to be performed accurately with the following correct selection of artificial intervertebral disk and maintaining the surgical technique of its arrangement. The disk implantation is performed under X-ray control using С-arch.
Conclusion: the wearing of semi-hard head holder is not required for patients after prothesis of artificial intervertebral disks and patients could restore in shorter postoperative period and return to their daily activity. The preservation of movements volume in all projections in operated spinal motion segments promotes the more physiological distribution of pressure on vertebral column and prevents the development of adjacent level syndrome.
About the Authors
A. A. Grin’
НИИ скорой помощи им. Н.В. Склифосовского
Московский государственный медико-стоматологический университет им. А.И. Евдокимова
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
S. A. Kholodov
Госпиталь ветеранов войн №2 Департамента здравоохранения г. Москвы
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
I. B. Aleinikova
НИИ скорой помощи им. Н.В. Склифосовского
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
References
1. Green A.A. Factors to minimise operational intervention in the operations of the front access to the cervical spine. Modern minimally invasive technologies (neurosurgery, vertebrology, neurology, neurophysiology). Proceedings of the VI international Symposium. — 2001. — S.-Petersburg. — P. 298-300. Russian (Гринь А.А. Факторы минимизации объема оперативного вмешательства при операциях передним доступом на шейном отделе позвоночника. Современные минимально-инвазивные технологии (нейрохирургия, вертебрология, неврология, нейрофизиология). Материалы VI международного симпозиума. — 2001. — С.-Петербург. — С.298-300).
2. Denisenko E. I. Vertebral compression syndrome vertebral artery. Abstract. Diss....candidate..med. Sciences. M. — 2002. Russian (Денисенко Е.И. Вертебральный компрессионный синдром позвоночной артерии. Автореф. дисс…. канд..мед. наук. М. — 2002.)
3. Polishchuk N. E. Surgical treatment of discogenic radiculomyelopathy of the cervical spine. M. Medicine. — 2004. Russian (Полищук Н.Е. Хирургическое лечение дискогенных радикуломиелопатий шейного отдела позвоночника. М., Медицина. 2004).
4. Shevelev I. N., Guscha A. O. Disc degenerative diseases of the cervical spine. — Moscow, 2008. Russian (Шевелёв И.Н., Гуща А.О. Дегенеративно-дистрофические заболевания шейного отдела позвоночника. М.,2008.)
5. Anderson P.A., Sasso R.C., Riew K.D. Comparison of adverse events between the Bryan artificial cervical disc and anterior cervical arthrodesis. Spine 2008;33:1305-1312.
6. Apfelbaum R.I., Kriskovich M.D., Haller J.R. On the incidence, cause, and prevention of recurrent laryngeal nerve palsies during anterior cervical spine surgery. Spine 2000; 25:2906-2912.
7. Baskin D.S., Ryan P., Sonntag V., et al. A prospective, randomized, controlled cervical fusion study using recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 with cornestone-sr allograft ring and the atlantis anterior cervical plate. Spine 2003;28:1219—1225.
8. Boakye M., Mummaneni P.V., Garrett M., et al. Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion involving a polyetheretherketone spacer and bone morphogenetic protein. J Neurosurg Spine 2005;2:521-525.
9. Burkus J.K., Haid R.W., Traynelis V.C., Mummaneni P.V. Long-term clinical and radiographic outcomes of cervical disc replacement with the prestige disc: results from a prospective randomized controlled clinical trial. J Neurosurg Spine 2010; 13: 308—318.
10. Bydon M., Xu R., De la Garza-Ramos R., et al. Adjacent segment disease after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: Incidence and clinical outcomes of patients requiring anterior versus posterior repeat cervical fusion. Surg Neurol Int 2014;5: S74-78.
11. Chang U.K., Kim D.H., Lee M.C., et al. Changes in adjacent-level disc pressure and facet joint force after cervical arthroplasty compared with cervical discectomy and fusion. J Neurosurg Spine 2007; 7:33—39.
12. Cheng L., Nie L., Li M., et al. Superiority of the Bryan((R)) disc prosthesis for cervical myelopathy: a randomized study with 3-year followup. Clinical orthopaedics and related research 2011;469(12):3408-3414.
13. Coric D., Cassis J., Carew J.D., Boltes M.O. Prospective study of cervical arthroplasty in 98 patients involved in 1 of 3 separate investigational device exemption studies from a single investigational site with a minimum 2-year follow-up. Clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 2010;13:715—721.
14. Delamarter R.B., Zigler J. Five-year reoperation rates, cervical total disc replacement versus fusion, results of a prospective randomized clinical trial. Spine 2013;38(9):711-717.
15. Dmitriev A.E., Cunningham B.W., Hu N., et al. Adjacent level intradiscal pressure and segmental kinematics following a cervical total disc arthroplasty: an in vitro human cadaveric model. Spine 2005; 30:1165—1172.
16. Gao Y., Liu M., Li T. et al. A meta-analysis comparing the results of cervical disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for the treatment of symptomatic cervical disc disease. The Journal of bone and joint surgery 2013. American volume 95(6):555-561.
17. Luo J., Gong M., Huang S., et al. Incidence of adjacent segment degeneration in cervical disc arthroplasty versus anterior cervical decompression and fusion meta-analysis of prospective studies. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2015:135:155-160.
18. McAnany S.J., Overley S., Baird E.O., et al. The 5-year cost-eQctiveness of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion and cervical disc replacement: A Markov analysis. Spine 2014;39:1924-1933.
19. McCulloch J.A., Young P.H. Essentials of spinal microsurgery. Philadelphia-New York, 1998.
20. Qureshi S., Goz V., McAnany S., et al. Health state utility of patients with single-level cervical degenerative disc disease: comparison of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with cervical disc arthroplasty. Journal of Neurosurgery Spine 2014; 20(5):475-479.
21. Qureshi S.A., McAnany S., Goz V., et al. Cost-eQectiveness analysis: comparing single- level cervical disc replacement and single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: clinical article. Journal of Neurosurgery Spine 2013;19(5):546-554.
22. Radcli K., Zigler J., Zigler J. Costs of cervical disc replacement versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for treatment of single-level cervical disc disease: An analysis of the Blue Health Intelligence database for acute and longterm costs and complications. Spine 2015;40:521-529.
23. Wagner S.C., Kang D.G., Helgeson M.D. Traumatic Migration of the Bryan Cervical Disc Arthroplasty. Global Spine J 2016;6(1):P.e15—e20.
24. Warren D., Hoelscher C., Ricart-HoRz P., et al. Cost-utility analysis of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion versus cervical disc arthroplasty. Evidence-based spine-care journal 2011;2(3):57-58.
Review
For citations:
Grin’ A.A., Kholodov S.A., Aleinikova I.B. Endoprothesis of cervical intervertebral disks for treatment of diskal compressive myeloradiculopathy. Russian journal of neurosurgery. 2017;(3):79-87. (In Russ.)
Views:
605
Email this article 