Minimally invasive interbody fusion in treatment of pain in local stenosis of cervical spine
Abstract Aim. The purpose of this study was to analyze the existing methods of surgical treatment of pa- tients with a pain syndrome caused by single level cervical disk herniation.
Material and methods: 45 patients with local stenosis of the spinal canal against the herniated cervical disc underwent surgical intervention. Surgical treatment was performed by minimally invasive antero-lateral cervical parapharyngeal access with installation of interbody cage from PEEK material with zero-profile locking mechanism filled with osteoconductive paste based on hydroxyapatite and β-tricalcium phosphate.
Results. 42 patients demonstrated excellent early postoperative results with discharge to out- patient aftercare on days 3–4 after surgical treatment. The secondary radicular symptomatology was eliminated in early postoperative period in 3 cases as a result of conservative therapy, patients were discharged from the hospital on days 9–10 after surgical intervention. In subsequent controlled examination after 6 and 12 months, 43 (95.6%) of 45 patients with no signs of degenerative changes in adjacent levels performed formation of interbody fusion, no implant dislocation occurred. This group of patients is still undergoing follow-up.
Conclusion. Surgical treatment of the cervical spine local stenosis of the spinal canal discussed in this article, is a method which allows to obtain excellent results and a good treatment option for the majority of patients and provides a basis-set to recommend it as a treatment of choice for these patients.
Keywords:herniated cervical disc, minimally invasive spinal fusion, discectomy
Clin. Experiment. Surg. Petrovsky J. 2016. № 3. Р. 97–105.
Received: 18.05.2016. Accepted: 29.07.2016.
References
1. Lucik A.A., Kazancev V.V. Surgical treatment of patients with cervical osteochondrosis. Khirurgiya pozvonochnika [Spine Surgery]. 2008; Vol. 4: 24–9. (in Russian)
2. Russian Federation Ministry of Health, Department of monitoring, analysis and strategic health development. The incidence of the adult population of Russia. 2013, 2014 years, Р. 133–5, tab. 3.65. (in Russian)
3. National Center for Health Statistics, Health, United States 2013, 2014. P. 1–3, tab. 49.
4. Smith G.W., Robinson R.A. The treatment of certain cervical-spine disorders by anterior removal of the intervertebral disc and interbody fusion. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1958; Vol. 40: 607–24.
5. Mihajlovskij M.V. Stages of vertebral surgery: historical review. Khirurgiya pozvonochnika [Spine Surgery]; 2004; Vol. 1: 10–24. (in Russian)
6. Jacobs W.C., Anderson P.G., Limbeek J. et al. Single or double level anterior interbody fusion techniques for cervical de- generative disc disease. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2004. Vol. 4: CD004958.
7. Mayer H.M., Korge A. Non-fusion technology in degenerative lumbar spinal disorders: facts, questions, challenges // Eur. Spine J. 2002. Vol. 11, suppl. 2. P. S85–S91.
8. Hwang S.H., Kayanja M., Milks R.A., Benzel E.C. Biomechanical comparison of adjacent segmental motion after ventral cervical fixation with varying angles of lordosis // Spine J. 2007. Vol. 7, N 2. P. 216–221.
9. Bridvell K.H., Anderson P.A., Boden S.D., Vakkaro A.R., Vjeng D.S.. New in Spine Surgery. Khirurgiya pozvonochnika [Spine Surgery]. 2009; Vol. 2: 99–111. (in Russian)
10. Hou Y., Liu Y., Yuan W., Wang X. et al. Cervical kinematics and radiological changes after Discover artificial disc replacement versus fusion. Spine J. 2014; Vol. 14 (N 6): 867–77. doi: 10.1016/j. spinee.2013.07.432. Epub 2013 Sep 26.
11. Zhang H.X., Shao Y.D., Chen Y., Hou Y., et al. A prospective, randomised, controlled multicentre study comparing cervical disc replacement with anterior cervical decompression and fusion. Int Orthop. 2014; Vol. 38 (N 12): 2533–41. doi: 10.1007/s00264-014- 2497-5. Epub 2014 Sep 11.
12. Luo J., Huang S., Gong M., Dai X. et al. Comparison of artificial cervical arthroplasty versus anterior cervical discectomy and fu- sion for one-level cervical degenerative disc disease: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials // Eur. J. Orthop. Surg. Traumatol. 2015 Jul. Vol. 25, suppl. 1. P. S115-S125. doi: 10.1007/s00590-014- 1510-4. Epub 2014 Jul 18.
13. Yu L., Song Y., Yang X., Lv C. Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials: comparison of total disk replacement with anterior cervical decompression and fusion // Orthopedics. 2011 Oct 5. Vol. 34, N 10. P. e651-e658. doi: 10.3928/01477447-20110826-09.
14. McAfee P.C., Cunningham B.W., Devine J., et al. Classification of geterotopic ossification (HO) in artificial disk replacement. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2003; Vol. 16 (N 4): 384–9.
15. Mehren C., Suchomel P., Grochulla F., et al. Heterotopic ossification in total cervical artificial disc replacement. Spine. 2006; Vol. 31 (N 24): 2802–6.
16. Gluкhih D.L. Results of surgical treatment of degenerative disc disease of the cervical spine fusion and arthroplasty techniques. Khirurgiya pozvonochnika [Spine Surgery]; 2011; Vol. 4: 58–66. (in Russian)
17. Zhou H.H., Qu Y., Dong R.P., Kang M.Y., et al. Does heterotopic ossification affect the outcomes of cervical total disc replacement? A meta-analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015; Vol. 40 (N 6): E332–40.
18. Bartels R.H., Donk R., Verbeek A.L. No justification for cer- vical disk prostheses in clinical practice: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Neurosurgery. 2010; Vol. 66 (N 6): 1153–60; discussion: 1160.
19. Rhee J.M., Riew K.D. Dynamic anterior cervical plates // J. Am. Acad. Orthop. Surg. 2007. Vol. 15. P. 640-646.
20. Rhee J.M., Park J.B., Yang J.Y., et al. Indications and techniques for anterior cervical plating. Neurol India. 2005; Vol. 53: 433–9.
21. Barysh A.E., Kozyrev S.A. Complications of ventral interbody fixation of cervical vertebra dynamic plates. Khirurgiya pozvonochnika [Spine Surgery]. 2014; Vol. 3: 22–31. (in Russian)
22. Bridwell K.H., Anderson P.A., Boden S.D., Vaccaro A.R., et al. What’s new in spine surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011; Vol. 93 (N 16): 1560–6.