Acquired Spondylolysis After Implantation of a Lumbar ProDisc II Prosthesis

Schulte, Tobias L.; Lerner, Thomas; Hackenberg, Lars; Liljenqvist, Ulf; Bullmann, Viola

doi:10.1097/brs.0b013e3181573ccc

Cited by 13 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 32 publications

(37 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These untoward effects may be related to the nonphysiologic nature of the design of these disc prostheses. 7 – 10 …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical performance of an elastomeric lumbar disc replacement: Minimum 12 months follow-up

Pimenta¹,

Springmuller²,

Lee³

et al. 2010

SAS Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundElastomeric disc replacements have been developed to restore normal shock absorption and physiologic centers of rotation to the degenerated disc. The Physio-L Artificial Lumbar Disc is an elastomeric disc which uses a compliant polycarbonate-polyurethane core with enhanced endurance properties. The objective of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the Physio-L through a 12-month follow-up period in a prospective, nonrandomized clinical trial.MethodsTwelve patients who met the inclusion/exclusion criteria were enrolled in the study. Eight patients received a single implant (L5-S1) and 4 received a 2-level implantation (L4-5 and L5-S1). Patients were assessed preoperatively and postoperatively at 6 weeks and 3, 6, and 12 months. Primary outcomes included the VAS, ODI, a radiographic analysis of implant condition, incidence of major complications, and reoperations. Secondary outcomes included SF-36, ROM at index and adjacent levels and disc height.ResultsAll patients completed the 12-month follow-up evaluations. Through 12 months, the Physio-L devices have remained intact with no evidence of subsidence, migration, or expulsion. VAS low-back pain and ODI scores improved significantly at all follow-up periods compared to preoperative scores. The range of motion of 13.3° ± 5.5° at the index level was considered normal. Overall, patients were satisfied with an average score of 83.5 ± 26.8 mm. When comparing the device to other artificial discs, the current device showed a clinically relevant improvement in both ODI and VAS scores at all follow-up time points. Statistically significant improvements in both scores were observed at 12 months (P < .05).ConclusionThe Physio-L is safe and efficacious, as demonstrated by improved pain relief and functional recovery without any implant failures, significant device related complications, or adverse incidents. The clinical results for VAS and ODI were superior to other marketed artificial lumbar discs such as the Charité and ProDisc-L at the same follow-up timeframes.

show abstract

“…These untoward effects may be related to the nonphysiologic nature of the design of these disc prostheses. 7 – 10 …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical performance of an elastomeric lumbar disc replacement: Minimum 12 months follow-up

Pimenta¹,

Springmuller²,

Lee³

et al. 2010

SAS Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Mathew et al describe good result after salvage interbody fusion using a stand-alone anterior lumbar interbody fusion at L5/S1 level for a patient pars fracture and dislocated TDR but with no spondylolisthesis [ 4 ]. Another paper utilized a posterior approach L5/S1 fusion for pars defect (also without spondylolisthesis) with good effect [ 5 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In one case of pedicle fracture with no dislocation conservative management was suitable [ 1 ]. In all of the polyethylene inlay dislocations there was no attempt to revise the TDR and an interbody fusion was required in each case [ 1 – 5 ]. The mechanism of dislocation has been attributed to an unusual bilateral pars fracture, usually in the L5 vertebra, which causes spondylolisthesis and instability of the prosthesis.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Use of Percutaneous Lumbar Fixation Screws for Bilateral Pedicle Fractures with an Associated Dislocation of a Lumbar Disc Prosthesis

Harrison

2013

Case Reports in Orthopedics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Study Design. Case report. Objective. To identify a safe technique for salvage surgery following complications of total disc replacement. Summary of Background Data. Lumbar total disc replacement (TDR) is considered by some as the gold standard for discogenic back pain. Revision techniques for TDR and their complications are in their infancy. This case describes a successful method of fixation for this complex presentation. Methods and Results. A 48-year-old male with lumbar degenerative disc disease and no comorbidities. Approximately two weeks postoperatively for a TDR, the patient represented with acute severe back pain and the TDR polyethylene inlay was identified as dislocated anteriorly. Subsequent revision surgery failed immediately as the polyethylene inlay redislocated intraoperatively. Further radiology identified bilateral pedicle fractures, previously unseen on the plain films. The salvage fusion of L5/S1 reutilized the anterior approach with an interbody fusion cage and bone graft. The patient was then turned intraoperatively and redraped. The percutaneous pedicle screws were used to fix L5 to the sacral body via the paracoccygeal corridor. Conclusion. The robust locking screw in the percutaneous screw allowed a complete fixation of the pedicle fractures. At 3-year followup, the patient has an excellent result and has returned to playing golf.

show abstract

“…L5-S1 application showed abnormal physiology (57,60). When it is used within the indications, results are very satisfactory.…”

Section: Anterior Disc Prosthesismentioning

confidence: 94%

Dynamic stabilization of the spine: a new classification system

Kaner¹,

Sasani²,

Öktenoğlu³

et al. 2009

Turkish Neurosurgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fusion surgeries are still the gold standard in the treatment of the degenerative spine. Spinal fusion has some problems, however. Adjacent segment disease, donor place ailment, and the morbidity of the surgery has emerged as important problems over the years. As a consequence of such complications after fusion, the search for an alternative treatment for the degenerative spine widened. While trying to maintain the motion in the joint, dynamic stabilization aims to remove the pain by distributing the weight between anterior and posterior elements of the spine. Various new devices have now been developed for the dynamic stabilization of the spine. In this report, the dynamic stabilization devices of the spine are classified anew and, the authors explain briefly the historical evolution process, specialties, indications and contraindications of these dynamic stabilization devices.

show abstract

Acquired Spondylolysis After Implantation of a Lumbar ProDisc II Prosthesis

Abstract: Spine surgeons should be aware of the possibility of lumbar disc arthroplasty to induce acquired spondylolysis impairing good clinical results.

Cited by 13 publications

References 32 publications

Clinical performance of an elastomeric lumbar disc replacement: Minimum 12 months follow-up

Clinical performance of an elastomeric lumbar disc replacement: Minimum 12 months follow-up

The Use of Percutaneous Lumbar Fixation Screws for Bilateral Pedicle Fractures with an Associated Dislocation of a Lumbar Disc Prosthesis

Dynamic stabilization of the spine: a new classification system

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About