Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Zervikale Bandscheibenprothesen

Cervical disc prostheses

  • Weiterbildung • Zertifizierte Fortbildung
  • Published:
Der Orthopäde Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Die endoprothetische Versorgung an der Halswirbelsäule ist eine attraktive Alternative zur Fusion in Fällen, in denen eine operative Therapie eines degenerativen Bandscheibenleidens notwendig erscheint. Zumindest theoretisch ist nachgewiesen, dass bei endoprothetischer Versorgung eine Überbeanspruchung der Nachbarsegmente mit möglichen negativen Folgen minimiert wird. Weiterhin erlauben zervikale Endoprothesen eine schnellere Rehabilitation, und die Knochenspanentnahmeproblematik entfällt. Die bislang mitgeteilten klinischen Ergebnisse an der Halswirbelsäule sind sehr ermutigend und weisen darauf hin, dass der endoprothetische Ersatz gerade bei Mehretagenproblematiken besonders gute Erfolge hat. Dennoch gibt es bisher für zervikale Endoprothesen noch keine veröffentlichten Langzeitergebnisse, und daher sind derzeit Anhaltspunkte für das Überleben der Prothesen hinsichtlich der aseptischen Lockerungsrate nicht bekannt. Auch gibt es noch keine Erkenntnisse darüber, wie sich eine implantierte zervikale Endoprothese bei nachlassender Knochenqualität im höheren Lebensalter verhält.

Abstract

Endoprosthetic replacement for spinal cord disorders represents an attractive alternative to fusion in those cases where surgery appears necessary for degenerative disc disease. At least in theory it has been proven that placement of an endoprosthesis minimizes undue stress on the adjoining segments and its possible negative consequences. Furthermore, cervical endoprostheses facilitate speedier rehabilitation and the problems involved in removal of the bone chip become irrelevant. Clinical results reported to date for the cervical spine are very encouraging and indicate that endoprosthetic replacement has been quite successful particularly for difficulties in multilevel approaches. However, long-term results for cervical endoprostheses have not yet been published and therefore at present there are no reference values for the viability of the prosthesis with regard to the aseptic loosening rate. There are also no findings available on how the implanted cervical prosthesis will behave when bone quality diminishes at an advanced age.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Abb. 1a,b
Abb. 2a–c
Abb. 3a,b
Abb. 4
Abb. 5
Abb. 6
Abb. 7

Literatur

  1. Anderson P, Sasso RC, Rouleau JP et al. (2004) The Bryan cervical Disc: wear properties and early clinical results. Spine J 4 (Suppl 6):303–309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Anderson P, Rouleau J, Toth J, Riew D (2004) A comparison of simulator-tested and retrieved cervical disc prostheses. J Neurosurg (Spine 1) 2:202–210

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bertagnoli R, Duggal N, Pickett GE et al. (2005) Cervical total disc replacement, part two: clinical results. Orthop Clin N Am 36:355–362

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bertagnoli R, Yue JJ, Pfeiffer F et al. (2005) Early results after ProDisc-C-cervical disc replacement. J Neurosurg Spine 2:403–410

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bohlman HH, Emery SE, Godfellow DB et al. (1993) Robinson anterior cervical discectomy and arthrodesis for cervical radiculopathy. Long term follow-up of one hundred and twenty-two patients. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 75(9):1298–1307

    Google Scholar 

  6. Brodke DS, Zdeblick TA (1992) Modified Smith-Robinson procedure for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Spine 17:S427–430

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Bryan V (2002) Cervical motion segment replacement. Eur Spine J 11 [Suppl 2]:S92–S97

  8. Cloward RB (1958) The anterior approach for removal of ruptured cervical discs. J Neurosurg 10:602–617

    Google Scholar 

  9. Cummins BH, Robertson JT, Gill S (1998) Surgical experience with an implanted artificial cervical joint. J Neurosurg 88:943–948

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Cunningham BW, Gordon JD, Dmitriev AE et al. (2003) Biomechanical evaluation of total disc replacement arthroplasty: an in vitro human cadaveric model. Spine 28:110–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Cunningham BW, Dmitriev AE, Hu N et al. (2003) General principles of total disc replacement arthroplasty: seventeen cases in a nonhuman primate model. Spine 28 (Suppl):118–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Dmitriev AE, Cunningham BW, Hu N et al. (2005) Adjacent level intradiscal pressure and segmental kinematics following a cervical total disc arthroplasty. Spine 30(10):1165–1172

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Durbhakula MM, Ghiselli G (2005) Cervical total disc replacement, part I: rationale, biomechanics, and implant types. Orthop Clin N Am 36:349–354

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Eck JC, Humphreys SC, Lim TH (2002) Biomechanical study on the effect of cervical spine fusion on adjacent level intradiscal pressure and segmental motion. Spine 27:2431–2434

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Elsberg CA (1931) The extradural ventral chondromas (ecchondroses), their favorite sites, the spinal cord and root symptoms they produce, and their surgical treatment. Bull Neur Inst 1:350–388

    Google Scholar 

  16. Eysel P, Fürderer S, Rompe JD, Zöllner J (2000) Die Primärstabilität unterschiedlicher Cages zur Fusion an der Halswirbelsäule. Zentralbl Neurochir 61:171–180

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Fernstrom U (1966) Arthroplasty with intracorporal endoprothesis in herniated disc and in painful disc. Acta Chir Scand Suppl 357:154–159

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Firsching R, Jöllenbeck B, Hahne R (2005) Zervikale Bandscheibenprothesen. Dtsch Ärztebl 102:A2178–2180

  19. Goffin J, Casey A, Kehr P et al. (2002) Preliminary clinical experience with the Bryan Cervical Disc Prosthesis. Neurosurgery 51:840–847

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Goffin J, Komistek R, Malfouz H et al. (2003) In vivo kinematics of normal, degenerative, fused, and disc-replaced cervical spines. Poster # 326, 70th Annual Meeting AAOS 5.–9. Februar New Orleans

  21. Goffin J, Van Calenbergh F, Van Loon et al. (2003) Intermediate follow-up after treatment of degenerative disc disease with the Bryan Cervical Disc Prosthesis: single-level and bi-level. Spine 28:2673–2678

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Goffin J, Geusens E, Vantomme N et al. (2004) Long term follow-up after interbody fusion at the cervical spine. J Spinal Disord Tech 17(2):79–85

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Hacker RJ, Cauthen JC, Gilbert TJ, Griffith SL. (2000) A prospective randomized multicenter clinical evaluation of an anterior cervical fusion cage. Spine 25:2646–2654

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Hallab N, Link HD, McAfee PC (2003) Biomaterial optimization in total disc arthroplasty. Spine 28(205):S139–S152

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Hendry JA, Pillar RM (2001) The fretting corrosion resistance of PVD surface modified orthopaedic implant alloys. J Biomed Mat Res 58:156–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Hilibrand AS, Carlson GD, Palumbo MA (1999) Radiculopathy and myelopathy at segments adjacent to the site of previous anterior cervical arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg (AM) 81:519–528

    Google Scholar 

  27. Jöllenbeck B, Fernandez N, Firsching R (2001) Titanium or polymethylmethacrylat in cervical disc surgery? A prospective study. Zentralbl Neurochirg 62:200–202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Jöllenbeck B, Hahne R, Schubert A, Firsching R (2004) Early experiences with cervical disc prostheses. Zentralbl Neurochir 65:123–127

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Kornu R, Maloney WJ, Kelly MA et al.(1996) Osteoblast adhesion to orthopaedic implant alloys: effects of cell adhesion molecules and diamond-like carbon. J Orthop Res 14:871–877

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Lafuente J, Casey TH, Petzold A, Brew S (2005) The Bryan cervical disc prosthesis as an alternative to arthrodesis in the treatment of cervical spondylosis. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 87:508–512

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. LeHuec JC, Kiaer T, Friesem T et al. (2003) Schock absorption in lumbar disc prosthesis: a preliminary mechanical study. J Spinal Disord Tech 16(4):346–351

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Link HD (2004) History, design and biomechanics of the link SB Charité disc. In: Gunzburg R, Mayer HM, Aebi M (eds) Arthroplasty of the spine. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York Tokyo, pp 36–43

  33. Link HD, McAfee PC, Pimenta L (2004) Choosing a cervical disc replacement. Spine J 4 [Suppl 6]:294–302

  34. Madawi AA, Powell M, Crockard HA (1996) Biocompatible osteoconductive polymer versus iliac graft: a prospective comparative study for the evaluation of fusion pattern after anterior cervical discectomy. Spine 21:2123–2129

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Mayer HM (2005) Total lumbar disc replacement. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 87:1029–1037

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. McAfee PC, Cunningham B, Dmitriev A et al. (2003) Cervical disc replacement — porous coated motion prosthesis. Spine 28:S176–S185

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. McAfee PC, Cunningham B, Dmitriev A et al. (2003) Cervical disc replacement with porous coated motion prosthesis: a comparative biomechanical analysis showing the key role of the posterior longitudinal ligament. Spine 28 [Suppl]:176–185

    Google Scholar 

  38. McAfee PC, Cunningham BW, Orbegoso CM et al. (2003) Analysis of porous ingrowth in intervertebral disc prostheses — a nonhuman primate model. Spine 28(4):332–340

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. McAfee PC (2004) The indications for lumbar and cervical disc replacement. Spine J 4 [6 Suppl]:177S–181S

  40. McAfee PC, Pimenta L, Crockard A et al. (2005) Comparison of single level versus multiple level cervical disc — 178 consecutive PCM prostheses. Poster; 20. Annual Meeting North American Spine Societies; Philadelphia 27.09.–01.10.

  41. Murray DB, Darden II BV, Laxer EB et al. (2004) Early results of a randomized controlled clinical trial comparing Prodisc-C and ACDF for cervical radiculopathy. Poster #7. Annual Meeting Cervical Spine Research Society

  42. Pape D, Nabhan A, Steudel W et al. (2005) Radio stereometric analysis of cervical interbody micromotion: fusion versus prosthesis. Norddeutsche Orthopädenvereinigung. 54. Jahrestagung der Norddeutschen Orthopädenvereinigung e.V. Hamburg, 16.–18.06.2005

    Google Scholar 

  43. Patel AI, Talbert SD, Lam C, Jannsen ME (2004) Comparison of single level ADCF versus Prodisc-C: preliminary result of a randomized prospective study. Poster #9. Annual Meeting Cervical Spine Research Society

  44. Phillips FM, Garfin SR (2005) Cervical disc replacement. Spine 30:S27–S33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Pickett GE, Mitsis GH, Sekhon LH et al. (2004) Effects of a cervical disc prosthesis on segmental and cervical spine alignment. Neurosurg Focus 17:30–35

    Google Scholar 

  46. Pickett GE, Rouleau JP, Duggal N (2005) Kinematic Analysis of the cervical spine following implantation of an artificial cervical disc. Spine 30:1949–1954

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Pimenta L, McAfee PC, Cappuccino A et al. (2004) Clinical experience with the new artificial cervical PCM (Cervitech) Disc. Spine J 4:315S–321S

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Pointillart V (2002): Cervical disc prothesis in humans, first failure. Spine 26:E90–E92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Porchert F, Metcalf NH (2004) Clinical outcomes with the Prestige II cervical disc: preliminary results from a prospective randomized clinical trial. Neurosurg Focus 17:E6

    Google Scholar 

  50. Puttlitz CM, Rousseau MA, Xu Z et al. (2004) Intervertebral disc replacement maintains cervical spine kinetics. Spine 29:2809–2814

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Reitz H, Joubert MJ (1964): Intractable headache and cervico-brachialgia treated by complete replacement of cervical intravertebral discs with a metal prosthesis. S Afr Med J 38:881–884

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Robertson JT, Porchert F, Brotchi J et al. (2002) A multicenter trial of an artificial cervical joint for primary disc surgery. Annual Meeting Society for Spinal Arthroplasty; Montpellier, France

  53. Robertson JT, Metcalf NH (2004) Long-Term outcome after implanation of the Prestige I disc in an end-stage indication: 4 -year results from a pilot study. Neurosurg Focus 17:E10

    Google Scholar 

  54. Sawin PD, Trynelis VC, Menezes AH (1998) A comparative analysis of fusion rates and donor-site morbidity for autogenic rib and iliac crest bone grafts in posterior cervical fusions. J Neurosurg 88(2):255–265

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Schröder J, Wassmann H (2002) Polymethylmethacrylat (PMMA) in der Halsbandscheibenchirurgie; Gegenwärtiger Stand in Deutschland. Zentralbl Neurochir 63:33–36

    Google Scholar 

  56. Smith G, Robinson R (1958) The treatment of certain cervical-spine disorders by anterior removal of the intervertebral disc and interbody fusion. J Bone Joint Surg Am 49:607–622

    Google Scholar 

  57. Stefee A (1989) The development and use of an artificial disc: case presentation. Camp Back Issues 2:4

    Google Scholar 

  58. Trynelis VC (2004) The Prestige cervical disc replacement. Spine J 4 [Supp]:310–314

  59. van Ooij A, Oner FC, Verbout AJ (2003) Complications of artifical disc replacement: a report of 27 patients with the SB Charité disc. J Spinal Disord Tech 16:369–383

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Villas C, Alfonso M, del Rio J et al. (2005) Adjacent degeneration after cervical arthrodesis: final report of a controlled study. Abstract #36; Barcelona: EUROSPINE 2005

  61. White AA, Panjabi MM (1990) Clinical biomechanics of the spine, 2nd edn. JB Lippincott Co., Philadelphia (PA)

  62. Wigfield CC, Gill SS, Nelson RJ et al. (2002) The new Frenchay artificial cervical joint: results from a two year pilot study. Spine 27:2446–2452

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Interessenkonflikt:

Es besteht kein Interessenkonflikt. Der korrespondierende Autor versichert, dass keine Verbindungen mit einer Firma, deren Produkt in dem Artikel genannt ist, oder einer Firma, die ein Konkurrenzprodukt vertreibt, bestehen. Die Präsentation des Themas ist unabhängig und die Darstellung der Inhalte produktneutral.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Klinik für Orthopädie und Orthopädische Chirurgie am Universitätsklinikum des Saarlandes

    E. W. Fritsch

  2. Klinik für Neurochirurgie am Universitätsklinikum des Saarlandes

    T. Pitzen

  3. Klinik für Orthopädie und Orthopädische Chirurgie am Universitätsklinikum des Saarlandes, 66421 , Homburg/Saar

    E. W. Fritsch

Authors
  1. E. W. Fritsch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. T. Pitzen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to E. W. Fritsch.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Fritsch, E.W., Pitzen, T. Zervikale Bandscheibenprothesen. Orthopäde 35, 347–361 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00132-006-0928-8

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00132-006-0928-8

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Search

Navigation