Analysis of the results of total cervical disc arthroplasty using a M6-C prosthesis: a multicenter study

Бывальцев, В. А.; Калинин, А. А.; Pestryakov, Yu.Ya.; Shepelev, Valerii V

doi:10.17116/neiro201781546-55

Cited by 9 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 32 publications

(30 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, some surgeons use post operatively non-steroidal anti-inﬂammatory medications to prevent HO formation despite the lack of evidence for this strategy. The published rate ranges from 0 at 29 months follow-up (25 patients)[ 30 ], or at 34 months (43 patients)[ 16 ] to 15.1% McAfee-Suchomel grade I and 10.7% grade II in (112 patients, 36 months follow-up)[ 31 ], or 29% no HO 13% grade I and 58% grade II or more[ 32 ]. As for lumbar levels, the implantation must avoid any anteroposterior shift of one metal endplate relative to the other which can damage the viscoelastic component.…”

Section: What Are the Challenges Facing The “Second-generation Tdr” Amentioning

confidence: 99%

Lumbar and cervical viscoelastic disc replacement: Concepts and current experience

Lazennec

2020

WJO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ideal lumbar and cervical discs should provide six degrees of freedom and tri-planar (three-dimensional) motion. Although all artificial discs are intended to achieve the same goals, there is considerable heterogeneity in the design of lumbar and cervical implants. The “second generation total disc replacements” are non-articulating viscoelastic implants aiming at the reconstruction of physiologic levels of shock absorption and flexural stiffness. This review aims to give an overview of the available implants detailing the concepts and the functional results experimentally and clinically. These monobloc prostheses raise new challenges concerning the choice of materials for the constitution of the viscoelastic cushion, the connection between the components of the internal structure and the metal endplates and even the bone anchoring mode. New objectives concerning the quality of movement and mobility control must be defined.

show abstract

Section: What Are the Challenges Facing The “Second-generation Tdr” Amentioning

confidence: 99%

Lumbar and cervical viscoelastic disc replacement: Concepts and current experience

Lazennec

2020

WJO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Semiconstrained implants allow motion just outside the physiologic norm in effort to theoretically decrease the mechanical stresses felt at both at the facet joints and the interface between the implant and the bony surfaces. While often successful, these varied designs have also brought with them a concomitant range of complications with documented occurrences of extrusions, heterotopic ossification, osteolysis, and hardware failure [16,23,[25][26][27][28].…”

Section: Arthroplasty Implantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Cervical Hybrid Arthroplasty

Pazmiño¹

2022

Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery - Advances and Innovations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The M6-C was subjected to several bench tests, and results indicated that the mechanical properties of M6-C were well within the defined safety requirements (Table 3). As a next step, several clinical studies were performed on both 1 and 2 levels which have been summarized in Table 2 [77,78,81,82]. Clinical outcomes have shown contradictory results when comparing 1 and 2 level procedures.…”

Section: Mobile Bumper -M6-cmentioning

confidence: 99%

Viscoelastic cervical total disc replacement devices: Design concepts

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cervical disc replacement (CDR) is a motion-preserving surgical procedure for treating patients with degenerative disorders. Numerous reports of first generation CDR "ball-and-socket" articulating devices have shown satisfactory clinical results. As a result, CDR devices have been safely implemented in the surgeon's armamentarium on a global scale. However, only minor design improvements have been made over the last few years, as first generation CDRs devices were based on traditional synovial joint arthroplasty designs. As a consequence, these articulating designs have limited resemblance to the complex kinematic behavior of a natural disc. This has driven the development of deformable viscoelastic CDR devices to better mimic the biomechanical behavior of a natural disc. As a result, several viscoelastic CDR devices have been developed in recent years that vary in terms of materials, design and clinical outcomes. Since these viscoelastic CDR devices are fairly new, their weaknesses and strengths, which are related to their design characteristics, have not been well described. Therefore, this literature review discusses design related advantages and disadvantages of deformable viscoelastic CDR devices. As such, this paper can provide insight for surgeons and engineers on specific design characteristics of several viscoelastic devices and could potentially help to develop and design future implants. Eleven viscoelastic CDR devices were identified. An extensive database search on the devices' tradenames in Medline and PubMed was performed next. The devices were categorized based on common design characteristics to give an overview of both category and device specific complications and advantages. Overall, literature shows that most of these viscoelastic CDR devices can provide motion in all six degrees-of-freedom and have a variable center of rotation. Nevertheless, the viscoelastic materials used do not have an extensive history in orthopedics, so the long-term material behavior in vivo is still unknown. Although the viscoelastic devices have common benefits and risks, each specific design and category also has its own design related advantages and drawbacks that are described in this review. Altogether, viscoelastic total disc replacements seem to be a promising option for the future of cervical arthroplasty, but long-term clinical outcome is needed to confirm the advantages of mimicking the viscoelasticity of a natural disc.

show abstract

Analysis of the results of total cervical disc arthroplasty using a M6-C prosthesis: a multicenter study

Cited by 9 publications

References 32 publications

Lumbar and cervical viscoelastic disc replacement: Concepts and current experience

Lumbar and cervical viscoelastic disc replacement: Concepts and current experience

The Cervical Hybrid Arthroplasty

Viscoelastic cervical total disc replacement devices: Design concepts

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About