Ramos MJF, López PJ, Alvarado SJC

Language: Spanish
References: 10
Page: 97-102
PDF size: 181.87 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Lumbar pathology is a problem with growing incidence in developed countries. Lumbar pain caused by disc degeneration is the most frequently cause of functional restriction in patients under 45 years old. Discectomy, laminectomy and posterior spinal fusion have been the traditional surgery treatment. Many patients continue with pain as a consequence of mechanical damage at the functional unit, with different degrees of instability and adjacent disc damage. There are two types of strategies for disc replacement: disc nucleus arthroplasty and total disc arthroplasty. A clinical essay was made in Angeles Mocel Hospital during the period between October 2003 to March 2005. Eight patients with degenerative lumbar disc disease or contained disc herniation, were treated with 12 disc prosthesis, previously they showed no improvement with conservative treatment at minimum 4 months. Preoperative and postoperative pain was reported with the analogue visual score and the Oswestry score. Eighty percent presented immediate postoperative improvement and 100% after 6 months using Oswestry score. This procedure offers good outcome at short term, when its well indicated. This treatment requires a multidisciplinary team and elevates the costs. We need long term follow up results.

REFERENCES

1. Bertagnoli R: Review of modern treatment options for degenerative disc disease. In: Kaech DL, Jinkins JR, eds. Spinal restabilization procedures. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science B.V.; 2002: 365-75.

2. Firestorm H: Arthroplasty with intercorporeal endoprosthesis in herniated an painful discs. Act Chir Scand 1973; 4: 165-86.

3. Hoffman-Daimler S: Zu frage de bandscheibenesatze. Z Orthop 1974; 112: 792-5.

4. Butter-Janz K, Shellnack K, Zippel H: Biomechanics on the Sb Charity lumbar intervertebral disc endoprosthesis. In: Orthop 1989; 13: 173-6.

5. Marnay T, et al: PRODISC retrospective clinical study. 7 to 11 years Follow-up, Prodiscs Spine Sol, 2000: 3-14.

6. Bertagnoli R, Kumar S: Indications for full prosthetic disc arthroplasty: a correlation of clinical outcome against a variety of indications. Eur Spine J 2002; 11(Suppl 2): S131-S136.

7. Beurskens AJ, de Vet HC, Koke AJ, van Derheijden GJ, Knipschild PG: Measuring the functional status of patients with low backpain. Assessment of the quality of four disease-specific questionnaires. Spine 1995; 20(9): 1017-28.

8. Brau SA: Mini-open approach to the spine for anterior lumbar interbody fusion: description of the procedure, results and complications. Spine J 2002; 2: 216-23.

9. Tropiano P, Huang RC, et al: Preliminary results with ProDisc II after a minimum follow-up period of 1 year. Journal of Spinal Disorders & Techniques 2003: 16, 362-8.

10. Barrrera RM. La prótesis discal lumbar. Revista del Hospital Privado de Comunidd. 2003; 6(1): 10-15.