Cargando…
Comparison of in vivo kinematic and radiological parameters of three cervical disc prostheses
INTRODUCTION: Cervical total disc replacement (CTDR) is an alternative to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for select patients that may preserve range of motion and reduce adjacent segment disease. Various CTDR prostheses are available; however, comparative data are limited. This study aimed...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8978856/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35386247 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jcvjs.jcvjs_92_21 |
_version_ | 1784681046266085376 |
---|---|
author | Chang, Nicholas Mobbs, Ralph Hui, Nicholas Lin, Henry |
author_facet | Chang, Nicholas Mobbs, Ralph Hui, Nicholas Lin, Henry |
author_sort | Chang, Nicholas |
collection | PubMed |
description | INTRODUCTION: Cervical total disc replacement (CTDR) is an alternative to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for select patients that may preserve range of motion and reduce adjacent segment disease. Various CTDR prostheses are available; however, comparative data are limited. This study aimed to compare the short-term kinematic and radiological parameters of the M6-C, Mobi-C, and the CP-ESP prostheses. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included patients treated with CTDR between March 2005 and October 2020 at a single institution. Patients were included if their follow-up assessment included lateral erect and flexion/extension radiographs. The primary outcome assessed at 3-months postoperatively was range of motion, measured by the difference in functional spinal unit angle between flexion and extension. RESULTS: A total of 131 CTDR levels (120 patients, 46.2 ± 10.1 years, 57% male) were included. Prostheses implanted included the M6-C (n = 52), Mobi-C (n = 54), and CP-ESP (n = 25). Range of motion varied significantly (8.2° ± 4.4° vs. 10.9° ± 4.7° vs. 6.1° ± 2.7°, P < 0.001). On post hoc analysis, the Mobi-C prosthesis demonstrated a significantly greater range of motion than either the M6-C prosthesis (P = 0.003) or CP-ESP (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Although the optimal range of motion for CTDR has not been established, short-term differences in the range of motion may guide the selection of CTDR prosthesis. Further studies with longer follow-up and consideration of clinical outcome measures are necessary. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8978856 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Wolters Kluwer - Medknow |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-89788562022-04-05 Comparison of in vivo kinematic and radiological parameters of three cervical disc prostheses Chang, Nicholas Mobbs, Ralph Hui, Nicholas Lin, Henry J Craniovertebr Junction Spine Original Article INTRODUCTION: Cervical total disc replacement (CTDR) is an alternative to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for select patients that may preserve range of motion and reduce adjacent segment disease. Various CTDR prostheses are available; however, comparative data are limited. This study aimed to compare the short-term kinematic and radiological parameters of the M6-C, Mobi-C, and the CP-ESP prostheses. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included patients treated with CTDR between March 2005 and October 2020 at a single institution. Patients were included if their follow-up assessment included lateral erect and flexion/extension radiographs. The primary outcome assessed at 3-months postoperatively was range of motion, measured by the difference in functional spinal unit angle between flexion and extension. RESULTS: A total of 131 CTDR levels (120 patients, 46.2 ± 10.1 years, 57% male) were included. Prostheses implanted included the M6-C (n = 52), Mobi-C (n = 54), and CP-ESP (n = 25). Range of motion varied significantly (8.2° ± 4.4° vs. 10.9° ± 4.7° vs. 6.1° ± 2.7°, P < 0.001). On post hoc analysis, the Mobi-C prosthesis demonstrated a significantly greater range of motion than either the M6-C prosthesis (P = 0.003) or CP-ESP (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Although the optimal range of motion for CTDR has not been established, short-term differences in the range of motion may guide the selection of CTDR prosthesis. Further studies with longer follow-up and consideration of clinical outcome measures are necessary. Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2022 2022-03-09 /pmc/articles/PMC8978856/ /pubmed/35386247 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jcvjs.jcvjs_92_21 Text en Copyright: © 2022 Journal of Craniovertebral Junction and Spine https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms. |
spellingShingle | Original Article Chang, Nicholas Mobbs, Ralph Hui, Nicholas Lin, Henry Comparison of in vivo kinematic and radiological parameters of three cervical disc prostheses |
title | Comparison of in vivo kinematic and radiological parameters of three cervical disc prostheses |
title_full | Comparison of in vivo kinematic and radiological parameters of three cervical disc prostheses |
title_fullStr | Comparison of in vivo kinematic and radiological parameters of three cervical disc prostheses |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of in vivo kinematic and radiological parameters of three cervical disc prostheses |
title_short | Comparison of in vivo kinematic and radiological parameters of three cervical disc prostheses |
title_sort | comparison of in vivo kinematic and radiological parameters of three cervical disc prostheses |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8978856/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35386247 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jcvjs.jcvjs_92_21 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT changnicholas comparisonofinvivokinematicandradiologicalparametersofthreecervicaldiscprostheses AT mobbsralph comparisonofinvivokinematicandradiologicalparametersofthreecervicaldiscprostheses AT huinicholas comparisonofinvivokinematicandradiologicalparametersofthreecervicaldiscprostheses AT linhenry comparisonofinvivokinematicandradiologicalparametersofthreecervicaldiscprostheses |