European Spine Journal
Latest Publications


TOTAL DOCUMENTS

8628
(FIVE YEARS 1192)

H-INDEX

128
(FIVE YEARS 9)

Published By Springer-Verlag

1432-0932, 0940-6719

Author(s):  
Louis Jacob ◽  
Guillermo F. López-Sánchez ◽  
Hans Oh ◽  
Igor Grabovac ◽  
Sinisa Stefanac ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  

Author(s):  
Nicola Giampaolini ◽  
Massimo Berdini ◽  
Marco Rotini ◽  
Rosa Palmisani ◽  
Nicola Specchia ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Matthew Scott-Young ◽  
Evelyne Rathbone ◽  
Lauren Grierson

Abstract Background According to published meta-analyses, cervical total disc replacement (CTDR) seems to be superior to anterior cervical decompression and fusion (ACDF) in most clinical parameters. Despite short-term clinical success of CTDR, there are concerns regarding long-term durability of these prostheses. Methods This prospective study involved 382 patients who received standalone CTDR or a hybrid procedure (ACDF/CTDR). A retrospective comparison between different CTDR devices was conducted regarding patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), failure scenarios, and revision surgeries. The M6-C™ Artificial Cervical Disc (Orthofix, Lewisville, Texas) cohort was compared to the other CTDR devices clinically. Etiological reasons for revision, and the surgical technique of the revision was investigated. Results Fifty-three patients received M6-C CTDR. Eighteen patients (34%) were revised at an average of 67 months postoperatively for wear-induced osteolysis. There were three additional cases of pending revision. The PROMs of the two groups were similar, indicating that the failure mode (wear-induced osteolysis) is often asymptomatic. The demographics of the two groups were also similar, with more women undergoing revision surgery than men. There were three one-level CTDR, four two-level hybrids, seven three-level hybrids, and three four-level hybrids revised anteriorly. Sixteen patients underwent removal of the prosthesis and were treated according to the extent of osteolysis. There were four vertebrectomies, six revisions to ACDF, and six revisions to another CTDR. One patient underwent supplemental fixation using a posterior approach. The other CTDR cohort had an incidence of 3.3% at the equivalent time, and none of these were due to osteolysis or wear-related events. Conclusions There is a concerning midterm failure rate related to ultra-high-molecular-weight-polyethylene wear-induced osteolysis in the M6-C. Patients implanted with the M6-C prosthesis should be contacted, informed, and clinically and radiologically assessed.


Author(s):  
Stanley Kisinde ◽  
Xiaobang Hu ◽  
Shea Hesselbacher ◽  
Alexander M. Satin ◽  
Isador H. Lieberman

Author(s):  
Dandurand Charlotte ◽  
N. Hindi Mathew ◽  
Ailon Tamir ◽  
Boyd Michael ◽  
Charest-Morin Raphaële ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Anna M. Zeitlberger ◽  
Marketa Sosnova ◽  
Michal Ziga ◽  
Oliver P. Gautschi ◽  
Luca Regli ◽  
...  

Abstract Purpose The smartphone-based 6-min walking test (6WT) is an established digital outcome measure in patients undergoing surgery for degenerative lumbar disorders (DLD). In addition to the 6WTs primary outcome measure, the 6-min walking distance (6WD), the patient’s distance to first symptoms (DTFS) and time to first symptoms (TTFS) can be recorded. This is the first study to analyse the psychometric properties of the DTFS and TTFS. Methods Forty-nine consecutive patients (55 ± 15.8 years) completed the 6WT pre- and 6 weeks (W6) postoperative. DTFS and TTFS were assessed for reliability and content validity using disease-specific patient-reported outcome measures. The Zurich Claudication Questionnaire patient satisfaction subscale was used as external criterion for treatment success. Internal and external responsiveness for both measures at W6 was evaluated. Results There was a significant improvement in DTFS and TTFS from baseline to W6 (p < 0.001). Both measures demonstrated a good test–retest reliability (β = 0.86, 95% CI 0.81–0.90 and β = 0.83, 95% CI 0.76–0.87, both p < 0.001). The DTFS exceeded the 6WD capability to differentiate between satisfied (82%) and unsatisfied patients (18%) with an AUC of 0.75 (95% CI 0.53–0.98) vs. 0.70 (95% CI 0.52–0.90). The TTFS did not demonstrate meaningful discriminative abilities. Conclusion Change in DTFS can differentiate between satisfied and unsatisfied patients after spine surgery. Digital outcome measures on the 6WT metric provide spine surgeons and researchers with a mean to assess their patient’s functional disability and response to surgical treatment in DLD.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document