medigraphic.com
ISSN 2992-7749 (Electronic)
ISSN 2992-7897 (Print)
Órgano Oficial de difusión científica de la Asociación Mexicana de Cirujanos de Columna A. C.

2025, Number 3

<< Back Next >>

Cir Columna 2025; 3 (3)

Non-acute Baguera C cervical disc prosthesis dislocation. Case report and bibliographic review

García MJE, Peressin A, Soria ILR, Miranda TJY, Santos BHA

Language: Spanish
References: 41
Page: 211-218
PDF size: 924.44 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Introduction: cervical disc arthroplasty as a surgical treatment of spondylosis is a technique that has gained popularity in recent years with the advantage of maintaining movement and reducing the development of adjacent segment disease. Despite this, it is not free of complications, one of the least frequent being implant dislocation, with very few official reports in the global literature. A case report of a Baguera C type prosthesis is presented, a bibliographic review is carried out covering the different prosthetic devices that have an official report in the literature, frequencies, associated factors and treatment used are analyzed. Clinical case: 30-year-old male undergoing surgery for long-standing neck pain and myelopathy secondary to C5-C6 disc herniation and C6-C7 spondylosis. Hybrid cervical arthroplasty was performed with placement of a Baguera C disc prosthesis at C5-C6 and a CeSPACE interbody spacer at C6-C7. 13 months later he returned to the clinic with pain and refractory symptoms, X-rays were taken showing posterior dislocation of the implant. Revision surgery was performed, removing the implant, placing an interbody spacer plus bone graft, and placing an anterior locked plate with complete remission of symptoms. Conclusions: prosthetic dislocation is rare, the literature reports few cases, this being the first related to the Baguera C prosthesis, surgical treatment is imperative. The female sex and the C5-C6 level are the most affected, the previous variant is the most common. Careful placement and proper selection of the implant size are the most important factors to take into account and reduce the chances of failure. When it occurs, arthrodesis is usually the most used option with favorable results.


REFERENCES

  1. Hilibrand AS, Carlson GD, Palumbo MA, Jones PK, Bohlman HH. Radiculopathy and myelopathy at segments adjacent to the site of a previous anterior cervical arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1999; 81: 519-528.

  2. Vital JM, Guérin P, Gille O, Pointillart V. Prótesis discales cervicales. EMC - Téc Quir - Ortop Traumatol [Internet]. 2011; 3: 1-13. Disponible en: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s2211-033x(11)71111-2

  3. Baba H, Furusawa N, Imura S, Kawahara N, Tsuchiya H, Tomita K. Late radiographic findings after anterior cervical fusion for spondylotic myeloradiculopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1993; 18: 2167-2173.

  4. Nunley PD, Coric D, Frank KA, Stone MB. Cervical disc arthroplasty: Current evidence and real-world application. Neurosurgery [Internet]. 2018; 83: 1087-1106. Available in: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29325074/

  5. Findlay C, Ayis S, Demetriades AK. Total disc replacement versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: A systematic review with meta-analysis of data from a total of 3160 patients across 14 randomized controlled trials with both short- and medium- to long-term outcomes. Bone Joint J [Internet]. 2018; 100-B: 991-1001. Available in: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30062947/

  6. Lee SB, Cho KS. Cervical arthroplasty versus anterior cervical fusion for symptomatic adjacent segment disease after anterior cervical fusion surgery: review of treatment in 41 patients. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2017; 162: 59-66.

  7. Zou S, Gao J, Xu B, Lu X, Han Y, Meng H. Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) versus cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) for two contiguous levels cervical disc degenerative disease: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Eur Spine J [Internet]. 2017; 26: 985-997. Available in: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27314663/

  8. Miao J, Shen Y, Li C, Fang L, Zhang L, Zhang X, et al. Cervical artificial disc replacement with Discover prosthesis does not reduce the midterm risk of heterotopic ossification: results of a cohort study. Clin Spine Surg [Internet]. 2018; 31: E204-E208. Available in: https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/wk/clss/2018/00000031/00000003/art00016

  9. Rosenthal BD, McCarthy MH, Bhatt S, Savage JW, Singh K, Hsu WK, et al. A comparison of patient-centered outcome measures to evaluate dysphagia and dysphonia after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2019; 27: 848-853.

  10. García AR, Colet ES, Teixidor RP, Alamar AM, Cladellas PJ, Hostalot PC, et al. Complicaciones del abordaje anterior en la patología de la columna cervical. Neurocirugia (Astur) [Internet]. 2007; 18: 209-220. Disponible en: https://scielo.isciii.es/scielo.php?pid=S1130-14732007000300003&script=sci_arttext&tlng=en

  11. Badiee RK, Mayer R, Pennicooke B, Chou D, Mummaneni PV, Tan LA. Complications following posterior cervical decompression and fusion: a review of incidence, risk factors, and prevention strategies. J Spine Surg. 2020; 6: 323-333.

  12. Memtsoudis SG, Hughes A, Ma Y, Chiu YL, Sama AA, Girardi FP. Increased in-hospital complications after primary posterior versus primary anterior cervical fusion. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011; 469: 649-657.

  13. Mereh C, Suchomel P, Grochulla F, Barsa P, Sourkova P, Hradil J, et al. Heterotopic ossification in total cervical artificial disc replacement. Spine. 2006; 31: 2802-2806.

  14. Suchomel P, Jurak L, Benes Lii V, Brabee R, Bradac O, Elgawhary S. Clinical results and development of heterotopic ossification in total cervical disc replacement during a 4 years follow-up. Eur Spine J. 2010; 19: 307-315.

  15. Ozbek Z, Ozkara E, Arslantas A. Implant migration in cervical disk arthroplasty. World Neurosurg. 2017; 97: 390-397. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2016.10.023.

  16. Zavras AG, Sullivan TB, Singh K, Phillips FM, Colman MW. Failure in cervical total disc arthroplasty: single institution experience, systematic review of the literature, and proposal of the RUSH TDA failure classification system. Spine J. 2022; 22: 353-369. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2021.08.006.

  17. García MJE, González MA, Sotelo MIJ, et al. La artroplastía cervical en la discopatía degenerativa. Análisis estadístico, experiencia de uso y resultados clínicos en un lapso de cinco años en un hospital privado de España. Cir Columna. 2024; 2 (2): 79-89. doi: 10.35366/115856.

  18. Fransen P, Noriega D, Chatzisotiriou A, Pointillart V. Cervical disc arthroplasty with the Baguera C prosthesis: clinical and radiological results of a 10-year follow-up study. Eur Spine J. 2023; 32: 3533-3539. doi: 10.1007/s00586-023-07833-y.

  19. Fransen P, Hansen-Algenstaedt N, Chatzisotiriou A, Noriega D, Verheyden J, Van Hecke W, et al. Radiographic outcome and adjacent segment evaluation two years after cervical disc replacement with the Baguera® C prosthesis as treatment of degenerative cervical disc disease. J Spine. 2016; 5: 1-7. doi: 10.4172/2165-7939.1000298.

  20. Lei T, Tong T, Miao D, et al. Anterior migration after bryan cervical disc arthroplasty: the relationship between hyperlordosis and its impact on clinical outcomes. World Neurosurg. 2017; 101: 534-539. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2017.02.071.

  21. Wagner SC, Kang DG, Helgeson MD. Implant migration after Bryan cervical disc arthroplasty. Spine J. 2014; 14: 2513-2514. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2014.05.005.

  22. Pelletier Y, Gille O, Vital JM. An anterior dislocation after Mobi-C cervical disc arthroplasty. Asian J Neurosurg. 2020; 15: 719-721. doi: 10.4103/ajns.AJNS_147_20.

  23. Zhai JL, Chang X, Hu JH, Weng XS. A case of implant migration following bi-level cervical disc arthroplasty. Chin Med J (Engl). 2017; 130: 497-498. doi: 10.4103/0366-6999.199843.

  24. Wagner SC, Kang DG, Helgeson MD. Traumatic migration of the bryan cervical disc arthroplasty. Global Spine J. 2016; 6: e15-e20. doi: 10.1055/s-0035-1550092.

  25. Prod'homme M, Grasset D, Boscherini D. Posterior intraprosthetic dislocation of cervical arthroplasty: illustrative case. J Neurosurg Case Lessons. 2021; 2: CASE21500. doi: 10.3171/CASE21500.

  26. Pickett GE, Sekhon LH, Sears WR, Duggal N. Complications with cervical arthroplasty. J Neurosurg Spine. 2006; 4: 98-105. doi: 10.3171/spi.2006.4.2.98.

  27. Jain M, Doki SK, Gaikwad M, Khutia S. Acute migration following dissociation of components of cervical disc arthroplasty. Neurol India. 2021; 69: 1037-1039. doi: 10.4103/0028-3886.323895.

  28. Tsermoulas G, Bhattathiri PS. Anterior migration of prosthesis following cervical arthroplasty. Br J Neurosurg. 2013; 27: 132-133. doi: 10.3109/02688697.2012.703354.

  29. Khan MQ, Prim MD, Alexopoulos G, Kemp JM, Mercier PJ. Cervical disc arthroplasty migration following mechanical intubation: a case presentation and review of the literature. World Neurosurg. 2020; 144: 244-249. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2020.08.037.

  30. Hacker FM, Babcock RM, Hacker RJ. Very late complications of cervical arthroplasty: results of 2 controlled randomized prospective studies from a single investigator site. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013; 38: 2223-2226. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000000060.

  31. Anderson PA, Sasso RC, Rouleau JP, Carlson CS, Goffin J. The Bryan cervical disc: wear properties and early clinical results. Spine J. 2004; 4: 303S-309S. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2004.07.026.

  32. Zhang Z, Zhu W, Zhu L, Du Y. Midterm outcomes of total cervical total disc replacement with Bryan prosthesis. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2014; 24 Suppl 1: S275-S281. doi: 10.1007/s00590-014-1424-1.

  33. Quan GM, Vital JM, Hansen S, Pointillart V. Eight-year clinical and radiological follow-up of the Bryan cervical disc arthroplasty. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011; 36: 639-646. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181dc9b51.

  34. Lebl DR, Cammisa FP Jr, Girardi FP, Wright T, Abjornson C. The mechanical performance of cervical total disc replacements in vivo: prospective retrieval analysis of prodisc-C devices. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012; 37: 2151-2160. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31826b3f61.

  35. Niu T, Hoffman H, Lu DC. Cervical artificial disc extrusion after a paragliding accident. Surg Neurol Int. 2017; 8: 138. doi: 10.4103/sni.sni_386_15.

  36. Shedid D, Benzel EC. Cervical spondylosis anatomy: pathophysiology and biomechanics. Neurosurgery. 2007; 60: S7-13.

  37. Theodore N. Degenerative cervical spondylosis. N Engl J Med. 2020; 383: 159-168. doi: 10.1056/NEJMra2003558.

  38. Cirera-Volta R. Espondilosis cervical. Rev Esp Reum Enferm Osteoartic. 1956; 6: 558-572.

  39. Karsy M, Bisson EF. Surgical versus nonsurgical treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis. Neurosurg Clin N Am [Internet]. 2019; 30: 333-340. Available in: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31078234/

  40. Lee CY, Tung KK, Tsou HK, et al. Risk factors for cervical disc arthroplasty subsidence with Bryan Disc-A retrospective observational analysis. J Clin Med. 2024; 13: 1589. doi: 10.3390/jcm13061589.

  41. Yang CC, Chen TY, Chen WH, et al. Anterior bone loss after cervical Baguera C Disc versus Bryan disc arthroplasty. Biomed Res Int. 2023; 2023: 8010223. doi: 10.1155/2023/8010223.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com