Cervical artificial disc extrusion after a paragliding accident.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Niu T
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5523474 | biostudies-other | 2017
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Similar Datasets
Project description:We reviewed charts and radiologic studies of 30 patients operated upon by ADR with Mobi-C® in single level since 2006. All patients had healthy cervical facet joints (less than or equal to grade 1 according to grading systems for cervical facet joint degeneration) preoperatively. We assessed clinical outcomes with NDI and VAS on neck and arm over follow-up and also measured ROM at implanted segment on dynamic radiographs during follow-up. The mean follow-up period was 42.4 ± 15.9 months. We then assessed the linearity of changes in ROM at implanted segment through linear mixed model. All patients showed significantly improved clinical outcomes. ROMs at implanted segment were maintained at slightly increased levels until 24 months postoperatively (P = 0.529). However, after 24 months, ROMs at implanted segment decreased significantly until last follow-up (P = 0.001). In addition, the decreasing pattern after 24 months showed a regular regression (P = 0.001). This decline was correlated with decline of extension angle at implanted segment. Based on this regular regression, we estimated that ROMs at implanted segments would be less than 2 degrees at 10.24 years postoperatively. Even though implanted segment maintains its motion for some length of time, we could assume that an artificial disc would have limited life expectancy correlated with the decline of extension angle.
| S-EPMC7041810 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveSymptomatic cervical disc disease (SCDD) is a common degenerative disease, and Discover artificial cervical disc, a new-generation nonconstrained artificial disk, has been developed and performed gradually to treat it. We performed this meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety between Discover cervical disc arthroplasty (DCDA) and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for SCDD.MethodsAn exhaustive literature search of PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials that compared DCDA with ACDF for patients suffering SCDD. A random-effect model was used. Results were reported as standardized mean difference or risk ratio with 95% confidence interval.ResultsOf 33 articles identified, six studies were included. Compared with ACDF, DCDA demonstrated shorter operation time (P < 0.0001), and better range of motion (ROM) at the operative level (P < 0.00001). But no significant differences were observed in blood loss, neck disability index (NDI) scores, neck and arm pain scores, Japanese orthopaedic association (JOA) scores, secondary surgery procedures and adverse events (P > 0.05). Subgroup analyses did not demonstrated significant differences.ConclusionIn conclusion, DCDA presented shorter operation time, and better ROM at the operative level. However, no significant differences were observed in blood loss, NDI scores, neck and arm pain scores, JOA scores, secondary surgery procedures and adverse events between the two groups. Additionally, more studies of high quality with mid- to long-term follow-up are required in future.
| S-EPMC5373642 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe cervical total disc replacement (cTDR) was developed to treat cervical degenerative disc disease while preserving motion.ObjectiveCost-effectiveness of this intervention was established by looking at 2-year follow-up, and this update reevaluates our analysis over 5 years.MethodsData were derived from a randomized trial of 330 patients. Data from the 12-Item Short Form Health Survey were transformed into utilities by using the SF-6D algorithm. Costs were calculated by extracting diagnosis-related group codes and then applying 2014 Medicare reimbursement rates. A Markov model evaluated quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for both treatment groups. Univariate and multivariate sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the stability of the model. The model adopted both societal and health system perspectives and applied a 3% annual discount rate.ResultsThe cTDR costs $1687 more than anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) over 5 years. In contrast, cTDR had $34?377 less productivity loss compared with ACDF. There was a significant difference in the return-to-work rate (81.6% compared with 65.4% for cTDR and ACDF, respectively; P = .029). From a societal perspective, the incremental cost-effective ratio (ICER) for cTDR was -$165?103 per QALY. From a health system perspective, the ICER for cTDR was $8518 per QALY. In the sensitivity analysis, the ICER for cTDR remained below the US willingness-to-pay threshold of $50?000 per QALY in all scenarios (-$225?816 per QALY to $22?071 per QALY).ConclusionThis study is the first to report the comparative cost-effectiveness of cTDR vs ACDF for 2-level degenerative disc disease at 5 years. The authors conclude that, because of the negative ICER, cTDR is the dominant modality.AbbreviationsACDF, anterior cervical discectomy and fusionAWP, average wholesale priceCE, cost-effectivenessCEA, cost-effectiveness analysisCPT, Current Procedural TerminologycTDR, cervical total disc replacementCUA, cost-utility analysisDDD, degenerative disc diseaseDRG, diagnosis-related groupFDA, US Food and Drug AdministrationICER, incremental cost-effectiveness ratioIDE, Investigational Device ExemptionNDI, neck disability indexQALY, quality-adjusted life yearsRCT, randomized controlled trialRTW, return-to-workSF-12, 12-Item Short Form Health SurveyVAS, visual analog scaleWTP, willingness-to-pay.
| S-EPMC4900425 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PURPOSE:The primary goal of this Policy Statement is to educate patients, physicians, medical providers, reviewers, adjustors, case managers, insurers, and all others involved or affected by insurance coverage decisions regarding lumbar disc replacement surgery. PROCEDURES:This Policy Statement was developed by a panel of physicians selected by the Board of Directors of ISASS for their expertise and experience with lumbar TDR. The panel's recommendation was entirely based on the best evidence-based scientific research available regarding the safety and effectiveness of lumbar TDR.
| S-EPMC4360606 | biostudies-other
Project description:STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. CLINICAL QUESTION: Does single-level unconstrained, semiconstrained, or fully constrained cervical artificial disc replacement (C-ADR) improve health outcomes compared with single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) in the long-term? METHODS: A systematic review was undertaken for articles published up to October 2011. Electronic databases and reference lists of key articles were searched to identify US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) studies reporting long-term (≥ 48 months) follow-up results of C-ADR compared with ACDF. Non-FDA trials and FDA trials reporting outcomes at short-term or mid-term follow-up periods were excluded. Two independent reviewers assessed the strength of evidence using the GRADE criteria and disagreements were resolved by consensus. RESULTS: Two FDA trials reporting outcomes following C-ADR (Bryan disc, Prestige disc) versus ACDF at follow-up periods of 48 months and 60 months were found (follow-up rates are 68.7% [318/463] and 50.1% [271/541], respectively). Patients in the C-ADR group showed a higher rate of overall success, greater improvements in Neck Disability Index, neck and arm pain scores, and SF-36 PhysicalComponent Scores at long-term follow-up compared with those in the ACDF group. The rate of adjacent segment disease was less in the C-ADR group versus the ACDF group at 60 months (2.9% vs 4.9%). Normal segmental motion was maintained in the C-ADR group. Furthermore, rates of revision and supplemental fixation surgical procedures were lower in the arthroplasty group. CONCLUSIONS: C-ADR is a viable treatment option for cervical herniated disc/spondylosis with radiculopathy resulting in improved clinical outcomes, maintenance of normal segmental motion, and low rates of subsequent surgical procedures at 4 to 5 years follow-up. More studies with long-term follow-up are warranted.
| S-EPMC3519406 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundCervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) has emerged as an alternative to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for the treatment of cervical pathologies. Studies are on-going to assess the long term outcomes of CDA. This study assessed the safety and efficacy of the Prestige(®) LP Disc at 84-months follow up.MethodsProspective data from 280 CDA patients with single-level cervical disc disease with radiculopathy or myelopathy were compared with 265 historical control ACDF patients. Clinical and radiographic follow up was completed pre-operatively, intraoperatively, and at intervals up to 84 months.ResultsFollow-up rate was 75.9% for CDA and 70.0% for ACDF patients. Statistical improvements (p < 0.001) in Neck Disability Index (NDI), neck/arm pain, and SF-36 were achieved by 1.5 months in both groups and maintained through 84 months. At 84 months, 86.1% of CDA versus 80.1% of ACDF patients achieved NDI success, (≥15-point improvement over baseline). Mean NDI score improvements exceeded 30 points in both groups. SF-36 PCS/MCS mean improvements were 13.1±11.9/8.2±12.3 points for CDA and 10.7±11.8/8.3±13.6 points for ACDF. Neurological success was 92.8% for CDA and 79.7% for ACDF patients. The rate of Overall Success was 74.9% for CDA and 63.2% for ACDF. At 84 months, 17.5% of CDA and 16.6% of ACDF patients had a possibly implant- or implant-surgical procedure-related adverse event. Eighteen (6.4%) CDA and 29 (10.9%) ACDF patients had a second surgery at the index level. In CDA patients, mean angular motion at the target level was maintained at 24 (7.5°) and 84 (6.9°) months. Bridging bone was reported in 5.9%/9.5%/10.2%/13.0% of CDA patients at 24/36/60/84 months. Change in mean preoperative angulation of the adjacent segment above/below the index level was1.06±4.39/1.25±4.06 for CDA and (-0.23)±5.37/1.25±5.07 for ACDF patients. At 84 months, 90.9% of CDA and 85.6% of ACDF patients were satisfied with the results of their treatment.ConclusionsPrestige LP maintained significantly improved clinical outcomes and segmental motion; statistical superiority of CDA was concluded for overall success. This investigational device exemption study was sponsored by Medtronic Spinal and Biologics, Memphis, TN. Study approved by the Hughston Sports Medicine Center Institutional Review Board on January 7, 2005. Clinical trial registered at clinicaltrials.gov: NCT00667459. All participants signed an informed consent.
| S-EPMC4943164 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC3676548 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and total cervical disc replacement (TDR) are considered effective treatments for patients with cervical degenerative disc disease (CDDD). An indirect meta-analysis including 19 randomized controlled trials (5343 patients) was conducted to compare the clinical outcomes of ACDF with TDR. Primary outcomes including functional indicators (NDI [neck disability index] score, neurological success and patient satisfaction), secondary outcomes including surgical outcomes (operation time, blood loss and length of stay) and secondary surgical procedures (secondary surgery at an adjacent level, secondary surgery at the index level, secondary surgery at both levels, removal, reoperation, revision and supplemental fixation) were included in the study. TDR using the Bryan disc was associated with a greater improvement in NDI score than ACDF (MD = -5.574, 95% CrIs [credible intervals] -11.73--0.219). For neurological success, the Bryan (odds ratio [OR] = 0.559, 95% CrIs 0.323-0.955) and Prestige (OR = 0.474, 95% CrIs 0.319-0.700) discs were superior to ACDF. However, no differences in the patient satisfaction rate were shown between TDR and ACDF. For patients with CDDD, ACDF using allograft and a plate is most effective for determining the surgical parameters. Moreover, TDR using the ProDisc-C, Mobi-C, Prestige and Bryan discs are good choices for improving functional outcomes and reducing secondary surgeries.
| S-EPMC5431800 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Cervical intervertebral disc has long been considered a common source of neck pain. However, the pain caused by the disc itself has not been clearly defined so far, and its diagnosis and treatment has always been controversial. Degenerative cervical disc has a rich supply of nerve fibers, is prone to inflammatory reactions, and is susceptible to pain that can be provoked by disc stimulation or distention, and can be eliminated by block. Overwhelming clinical evidence demonstrates that neck pain in patients with degenerative cervical radiculopathy or myelopathy can be subsided rapidly by anterior cervical surgery, further indicating that this neck pain stems from the pathology of cervical disc itself. Cervical discography is advocated as the only test that connects disease to symptoms, but the procedure remains controversial. If strict criteria and technique are maintained, discography can discriminate painful, symptomatic discs from nonpainful, asymptomatic discs. Discogenic neck pain alone without cervical disc herniation or cervical spondylosis accounts for a large proportion of chronic neck pain. For these patients who continue to have refractory neck pain and fail to respond to conservative treatment, anterior cervical fusion surgery or artificial cervical disc replacement may be a better choice, and preoperative cervical discography can guarantee the excellent surgical results. Existing basic and clinical studies have scientifically shown that cervical intervertebral disc degeneration can lead to neck pain.
| S-EPMC6241687 | biostudies-other
Project description:Purpose of reviewCervical disc replacement (CDR) has emerged as a motion-preserving alternative to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion in selected cases. Despite favorable literature, CDR is not universally accepted because of concerns regarding bias in the existing literature. The purpose of this review is to identify the possible biases in the disc replacement literature.Recent findingsRecent studies that compare CDR and ACDF have demonstrated equivalent or superior outcomes, lower rates of secondary surgery, and equivalent safety at medium- and long-term follow-up. In our review, we identified four types of bias that may affect the CDR literature: publication bias, external validity, confounding bias, and financial conflicts of interest. Bias, whether intentional or unintentional, can impact the interpretation and outcome of CDR studies. Recognition of this issue is critical when utilizing the existing literature to determine the efficacy of CDR and designing future studies.
| S-EPMC5435630 | biostudies-literature