gms | German Medical Science

54. Jahrestagung der Norddeutschen Orthopädenvereinigung e. V.

Norddeutsche Orthopädenvereinigung

16.06. bis 18.06.2005, Hamburg

Artikel

Artikel empfehlen

Clinical results of endoprothetic disc replacement in the lumbar spine after Prodisc implantation: correlation of clinical outcome and different indications

Meeting Abstract

Suche in Medline nach

  • corresponding author C. Siepe - Orthozentrum München, Orthopädische Klinik, Wirbelsäulenzentrum, München
  • K. Wiechert - München
  • A. Korge - München
  • M. Mayer - München

Norddeutsche Orthopädenvereinigung. 54. Jahrestagung der Norddeutschen Orthopädenvereinigung e.V.. Hamburg, 16.-18.06.2005. Düsseldorf, Köln: German Medical Science; 2005. Doc05novEP113

Die elektronische Version dieses Artikels ist vollständig und ist verfügbar unter: http://www.egms.de/de/meetings/nov2005/05nov178.shtml

Veröffentlicht: 13. Juni 2005

© 2005 Siepe et al.
Dieser Artikel ist ein Open Access-Artikel und steht unter den Creative Commons Lizenzbedingungen (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/deed.de). Er darf vervielfältigt, verbreitet und öffentlich zugänglich gemacht werden, vorausgesetzt dass Autor und Quelle genannt werden.

Gliederung

Text

Introduction

Despite increasing popularity of disc arthroplasty for degenerative disc disease treatment, indications remain a matter of debate. We report the results of disc-arthroplasty using ProdiscTM for different indications, minimum follow-up 12 months.

Materials and Methods

Between 07/2000 and 12/2004, the ProdiscTM-device was implanted in 165 patients (43,5 years avg.) mono-, bi- or multi-segmentally. Indications included degenerative disc disease with (Modic) and without Modic-changes (DDD), DDD with disc herniation,  postoperative osteochondrosis, adjacent disc degeneration following previous fusion, DDD with a monosegmental tilt and combined fusion-disc-replacement procedures in adjacent levels. Diagnosis were based on x-ray/ MRI-imaging. Results were evaluated according to VAS, SF-36 and Oswestry-Disability-Questionnaire (ODQ). Examinations were carried out 3, 6, 12 months postoperatively, annually from then.

Results

DDD: VASpre= 6,7; ODQpre 41%; VASpost=3,4 and 21% ODQpost. DDD+NPP: VASpre = 6,3; ODQpre 34%; postoperative VASpost=1,6 and 9% ODQpost. KOMBI: VASpre = 8,1; ODQpre 46%; VASpost =3,3 and 18% ODQpost. MODIC: VASpre = 7,0; ODQpre= 40, VASpost = 2,8; ODQpost = 16. DDD postop: VASpre= 7,0; ODQpre 44%; VASpost=3,6 and 28% ODQpost. Average duration of operation 126 min/monosegmental operations; blood loss approx. 100ml/segment. Peri-/postoperative complications: 1 inlay dislocation, 1 temporary retrograde ejaculation, 1 common iliac vein thrombosis. Within < 12 months 78% of patients had returned to their occupations.

Conclusion

Whilst longer follow-up evaluations are necessary, present data suggest that total disc arthroplasty is a safe and standardized procedure for treatment of DDD with good postoperative clinical results. Due to significantly varying outcomes, indications for disc arthroplasty must be defined precisely.