Auerbach Joshua D, Jones Kristofer J, Fras Christian I, Balderston Jessica R, Rushton Scott A, Chin Kingsley R
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, The Hospital of The University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia PA, 19104, USA.
Spine J. 2008 Sep-Oct;8(5):711-6. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2007.06.018. Epub 2007 Nov 5.
Although the prevalence of indications and contraindications to lumbar total disc replacement (TDR) has been evaluated, no study to date has quantified the potential candidacy for cervical disc replacement in practice.
To report the potential candidacy rate for cervical TDR from both an academic and private practice spine surgery setting.
STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective case series.
Patient record review of 167 consecutive patients who underwent cervical spine surgery by 1 of 2 orthopedic spine surgeons between January 1, 2003 and January 1, 2005.
Evaluation of potential candidacy for cervical TDR, with emphasis on both contraindications and indications.
In this study, we used the published contraindications and indications listed in trials of four different cervical disc arthroplasty devices: ProDisc-C (Synthes Spine, West Chester, PA), PRESTIGE LP (Medtronik Sofamor Danek, Memphis, TN), Bryan Cervical Disc prosthesis (Medtronik Sofamor Danek, Memphis, TN), and Porous Coated Motion (PCM; Cervitech, Rockaway, NJ). The proportion of patients who met both inclusion and exclusion criteria was calculated. We also examined the proportion of patients who would be candidates for cervical TDR if the indications were expanded to include the treatment for adjacent segment disease (ASD).
Of the 167 patients (mean age 50.8 years, range 20-89 years) reviewed, 91.6% (153/167) had fusion surgery and 8.4% (14/167) had nonfusion surgery. Fifty-seven percent (95/167) had absolute contraindications to cervical TDR, and within this group the average number of contraindications was 2.1 (SD=1.2, range 0-5). Forty-three percent (72/167) met the strict inclusion criteria, and had no exclusion criteria. If the indications were expanded to include treatment for ASD, an additional 4.2% (7/167) of the patients would have qualified as candidates for cervical TDR.
Compared with lumbar TDR, total disc replacement may have a larger potential role in the treatment of cervical degenerative conditions, as 43% of patients would have met the strict criteria for TDR candidacy, or 47% if the indications were expanded to include treatment for ASD.
虽然腰椎全椎间盘置换术(TDR)的适应症和禁忌症的患病率已得到评估,但迄今为止尚无研究对颈椎间盘置换术在实际应用中的潜在候选率进行量化。
报告学术和私立脊柱外科手术环境下颈椎TDR的潜在候选率。
研究设计/设置:回顾性病例系列。
对2003年1月1日至2005年1月1日期间由2名骨科脊柱外科医生之一进行颈椎手术的167例连续患者的病历进行回顾。
评估颈椎TDR的潜在候选情况,重点关注禁忌症和适应症。
在本研究中,我们使用了四种不同颈椎间盘置换装置试验中列出的已发表的禁忌症和适应症:ProDisc-C(辛迪斯脊柱公司,宾夕法尼亚州韦斯特切斯特)、PRESTIGE LP(美敦力索法玛丹尼克公司,田纳西州孟菲斯)、Bryan颈椎间盘假体(美敦力索法玛丹尼克公司,田纳西州孟菲斯)和多孔涂层活动型(PCM;Cervitech公司,新泽西州罗科威)。计算符合纳入和排除标准的患者比例。我们还检查了如果适应症扩大到包括相邻节段疾病(ASD)治疗,符合颈椎TDR候选标准的患者比例。
在回顾的167例患者(平均年龄50.8岁,范围20 - 89岁)中,91.6%(153/167)接受了融合手术,8.4%(14/167)接受了非融合手术。57%(95/167)的患者有颈椎TDR的绝对禁忌症,在该组中平均禁忌症数量为2.1(标准差 = 1.2,范围0 - 5)。43%(72/167)的患者符合严格的纳入标准且无排除标准。如果适应症扩大到包括ASD治疗,另外4.2%(7/167)的患者将符合颈椎TDR候选标准。
与腰椎TDR相比,全椎间盘置换术在颈椎退行性疾病的治疗中可能具有更大的潜在作用,因为43%的患者符合TDR候选的严格标准,如果适应症扩大到包括ASD治疗,则为47%。