Cargando…

Discrepancy between cervical disc prostheses and anatomical cervical dimensions

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess appropriateness of the sizes of available cervical disc prostheses based on tomographic measurement of human cervical vertebrae. METHODS: The anatomic dimensions of the C3–C7 segments were measured on 50 patients (age range 26–47 years) with computerize...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Karaca, Sinan, Akpolat, Ahmet Onur, Oztermeli, Ahmet, Erdem, Mehmet Nuri, Aydogan, Mehmet
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Turkish Association of Orthopaedics and Traumatology 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6197307/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27776930
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aott.2016.03.003
_version_ 1783364738507341824
author Karaca, Sinan
Akpolat, Ahmet Onur
Oztermeli, Ahmet
Erdem, Mehmet Nuri
Aydogan, Mehmet
author_facet Karaca, Sinan
Akpolat, Ahmet Onur
Oztermeli, Ahmet
Erdem, Mehmet Nuri
Aydogan, Mehmet
author_sort Karaca, Sinan
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess appropriateness of the sizes of available cervical disc prostheses based on tomographic measurement of human cervical vertebrae. METHODS: The anatomic dimensions of the C3–C7 segments were measured on 50 patients (age range 26–47 years) with computerized tomography scan and compared with the sizes of the popular cervical total disc prostheses (CTDP) at the market [Bryan (Medtronic), Prodisc-C (Synthes), Prestige LP (Medtronic), Discover (DePuy)]. The mediolateral and anteriorposterior diameters of the upper and lower endplates were measured with a digital measuring system. RESULTS: Overall, 43.7% of the largest implant footprints were smaller in the anterior-posterior diameter and 42.6% in the mediolateral diameter were smaller than cervical endplate measurements. Discrepancy of the level C5/C6 and C6/C7 was calculated as 56.2% at the anteroposterior diameter and 43.8% at the center of mediolateral diameter. CONCLUSION: Large disparity has been found between the sizes of devices and cervical anatomic data. Companies that produce CTDP should take care of the anatomical dimensions and generate different sizes of CTDP. Spine surgeon should be familiar with the size mismatch in CTDP that may affect the clinical and radiological outcome of the surgery.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6197307
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Turkish Association of Orthopaedics and Traumatology
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-61973072018-10-24 Discrepancy between cervical disc prostheses and anatomical cervical dimensions Karaca, Sinan Akpolat, Ahmet Onur Oztermeli, Ahmet Erdem, Mehmet Nuri Aydogan, Mehmet Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc Original Article OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess appropriateness of the sizes of available cervical disc prostheses based on tomographic measurement of human cervical vertebrae. METHODS: The anatomic dimensions of the C3–C7 segments were measured on 50 patients (age range 26–47 years) with computerized tomography scan and compared with the sizes of the popular cervical total disc prostheses (CTDP) at the market [Bryan (Medtronic), Prodisc-C (Synthes), Prestige LP (Medtronic), Discover (DePuy)]. The mediolateral and anteriorposterior diameters of the upper and lower endplates were measured with a digital measuring system. RESULTS: Overall, 43.7% of the largest implant footprints were smaller in the anterior-posterior diameter and 42.6% in the mediolateral diameter were smaller than cervical endplate measurements. Discrepancy of the level C5/C6 and C6/C7 was calculated as 56.2% at the anteroposterior diameter and 43.8% at the center of mediolateral diameter. CONCLUSION: Large disparity has been found between the sizes of devices and cervical anatomic data. Companies that produce CTDP should take care of the anatomical dimensions and generate different sizes of CTDP. Spine surgeon should be familiar with the size mismatch in CTDP that may affect the clinical and radiological outcome of the surgery. Turkish Association of Orthopaedics and Traumatology 2016-10 2016-10-21 /pmc/articles/PMC6197307/ /pubmed/27776930 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aott.2016.03.003 Text en © 2016 Publishing services by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Turkish Association of Orthopaedics and Traumatology. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Original Article
Karaca, Sinan
Akpolat, Ahmet Onur
Oztermeli, Ahmet
Erdem, Mehmet Nuri
Aydogan, Mehmet
Discrepancy between cervical disc prostheses and anatomical cervical dimensions
title Discrepancy between cervical disc prostheses and anatomical cervical dimensions
title_full Discrepancy between cervical disc prostheses and anatomical cervical dimensions
title_fullStr Discrepancy between cervical disc prostheses and anatomical cervical dimensions
title_full_unstemmed Discrepancy between cervical disc prostheses and anatomical cervical dimensions
title_short Discrepancy between cervical disc prostheses and anatomical cervical dimensions
title_sort discrepancy between cervical disc prostheses and anatomical cervical dimensions
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6197307/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27776930
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aott.2016.03.003
work_keys_str_mv AT karacasinan discrepancybetweencervicaldiscprosthesesandanatomicalcervicaldimensions
AT akpolatahmetonur discrepancybetweencervicaldiscprosthesesandanatomicalcervicaldimensions
AT oztermeliahmet discrepancybetweencervicaldiscprosthesesandanatomicalcervicaldimensions
AT erdemmehmetnuri discrepancybetweencervicaldiscprosthesesandanatomicalcervicaldimensions
AT aydoganmehmet discrepancybetweencervicaldiscprosthesesandanatomicalcervicaldimensions