de la Torre GDM, Ortiz RF, González HFJ, Aguilar AMA

Language: Spanish
References: 12
Page: 14-18
PDF size: 811.29 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Objective. To evaluate the result of the surgical treatment for the intersomatic arthrodesis for anterior approach of the cervical spine in the with the use of intersomatic cages (DENNIA OXPEKK-IG) and it autogenus bone graft comparing the results in the evolution of the treatment of this entity in our hospital. Material and methods. 16 patients are studied with cervical degenerative illness (spondiloarthrosis), 9 patients of the masculine sex and 7 of the feminine sex are included with an average of 50 year-old age, in a period of 3 years of March of the 2006 to March of the 2009, managed all low surgical treatment whit anterior approach using intersomatic cages (DENNIA OXPEKK-IG) as well as bone implant of iliac crest for the arthrodesis intersegmentary. Results. To all the patients they were given pursuit by a period of six months to one year, they were evaluated in a clinical and radiological way, 10 patients (62.5%) it remitted the later sintomatology to the surgery, 4 patients (25%) during one period of 3 to 6 months, in 2 patients (12.5%) it didn’t remit the sintomatology, in 12 patients (87.5%) you achievement the arthrodesis in one period of 6 to 8 months, 2 patients (12.5) migration of the intersomatic cages and 4 patients presented (25%) they didn’t achieve the arthrodesis. Conclusion. We have studied the evolution of the surgical treatment of the patients with cervical degenerative illness, the use of autogenus bone graft, and intersomatic cages for intersegmentary arthrodesis in patients whit cervical degenerative illness they obtained satisfactory results.

REFERENCES

1. Mark PA, Wilco CP. Vertebral body replacement systems whit expandable cages in the treatment of varius spinal pathologies: a prospectively followed case series of 60 patients. Neurosurgery 2008; 63(3): 537-45.

2. Hansen MA, Mungovan S, Ho D, Kam A. A prospective comparison of two cervical interbody fusión cages: NS13P. ANZ Journal of Surgery 2007; 77(Suppl. 1): 54.

3. Ronald HMAB, Roland DD, Ton RNF. Subsidence of Standalone Cervical Carbon Fiber Cages. Neurosurgery 2006; 58(3): 502-8.

4. Brian K, David HK, Andrea BSM, Louis GJ. Outcomes Following Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: The Role of Interbody Disc Height, Angulation, and Spinous Process Distance. Journal of Spinal Disorders & Techniques 2005; 18(4): 304-8.

5. Masahiro K, Tomoyuki H, Keiichi S, Fumihiro O, Takashi I, Shigeru Y. Pitfalls of Anterior Cervical Fusion Using Titanium Mesh and Local Autograft. Journal of Spinal Disorders & Techniques 2003; 16(6): 513-18.

6. Zdeblick TA, Phillips FM. Interbody Cage Devices. Spine 2003; 28(15 Suppl.): S2-S7.

7. Banco SP, Jenis L, Tromanhauser S, Rand F, Banco RJ. The use of cervical cages for treatment of cervical disc disease. Current Opinion in Orthopaedics 2002; 13(3): 220-3.

8. Papavero L, Zwonitzer R, Burkard I, Klose K, Herrmann HD. A Composite Bone Graft Substitute for Anterior Cervical Fusion: Assessment of Osseointegration by Quantitative Computed Tomography. Spine 2002; 27(10): 1037-43.

9. Hacker RJ. Threaded Cages for Degenerative Cervical Disease. Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research 2002; 394: 39-46.

10. Ransford A. The degenerative cervical spine. Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery-British 2001; 83-B(6): 933.

11. Shimamoto N, Cunningham BW, Dmitriev AE, et al. Biomechanical evaluation of stand-alone interbody fusion cages in the cervical spine. Spine 2001; 26: E432-6.

12. Kandziora F, Pflugmacher R, Schafer J, et al. Biomechanical comparison of cervical interbody fusion cages. Spine 2001; 26: 1850-7.