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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Chang, Nicholas, Mobbs, Ralph, Hui, Nicholas, Lin, Henry
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