PDF herunterladen
Neurochirurgie Scan 2013; 01(03): 225-238
DOI: 10.1055/s-0033-1358827
Fortbildung
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Bandscheibenprothesen und Non-Fusion – ein Update

Jochen Obernauer
,
Sebastian Hartmann
,
Claudius Thomé
Weitere Informationen

Publikationsverlauf

Publikationsdatum:
15. November 2013 (online)

Auch verfügbar auf
    Lizenzen und Reprints

Zusammenfassung

In der operativen Behandlung degenerativer zervikaler und lumbaler Bandscheibenerkrankungen und Spondylosen spielen neben der klassischen Fusion „dynamische“ Implantate eine Rolle. In dieser Arbeit wird die gesammelte Evidenz zur Anwendung zervikaler und lumbaler Bandscheibenprothesen sowie von Non-Fusion-Implantaten dargestellt.

Kernaussagen

  • Zervikale Bandscheibenprothesen liefern im 5-Jahres-Verlauf ein annähernd gleichwertiges klinisches Ergebnis wie die klassische ACDF. Erwartungen hinsichtlich der Anschlussdegeneration konnten bislang allerdings nicht erfüllt werden.

  • Lumbale Bandscheibenprothesen zeigen bislang keine Vorteile gegenüber der Spondylodese.

  • Interspinöse Spreizer zeigen eine hohe Komplikationsrate und können aufgrund fehlender prospektiver Langzeitdaten derzeit nicht zur standardisierten Anwendung empfohlen werden.

  • Die Evidenz zur Anwendung pedikelschraubengestützter dynamischer Stabilisierungssysteme muss bei derzeit fehlenden prospektiv-randomisierten Studien allgemein als niedrig bewertet werden. Darüber hinaus zeigt sich in den verfügbaren Daten eine vergleichsweise hohe Revisionsrate.

 

  • Literatur

  • 1 Upadhyaya CD, Wu JC, Trost G et al. Analysis of the three United States Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption cervical arthroplasty trials. J Neurosurg Spine 2012; 16: 216-228
    CrossrefSuche in Google Scholar
  • 2 Phillips FM, Lee JY, Geisler FH et al. A prospective, randomized, controlled clinical investigation comparing PCM cervical disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. 2-year results from the US FDA IDE clinical trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2013; 38: E907-E918
    CrossrefSuche in Google Scholar
  • 3 Sasso RC, Anderson PA, Riew KD et al. Results of cervical arthroplasty compared with anterior discectomy and fusion: four-year clinical outcomes in a prospective, randomized controlled trial. Orthopedics 2011; 34: 889
    CrossrefSuche in Google Scholar
  • 4 Boselie TF, Willems PC, van Mameren H et al. Arthroplasty versus fusion in single-level cervical degenerative disc disease: a cochrane review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2013; 38: E1096-E1107
    CrossrefSuche in Google Scholar
  • 5 Burkus JK, Haid RW, Traynelis VC et al. Long-term clinical and radiographic outcomes of cervical disc replacement with the Prestige disc: results from a prospective randomized controlled clinical trial. J Neurosurg Spine 2010; 13: 308-318
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 6 Hilibrand AS, Carlson GD, Palumbo MA et al. Radiculopathy and myelopathy at segments adjacent to the site of a previous anterior cervical arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1999; 81: 519-528
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 7 Mummaneni PV, Burkus JK, Haid RW et al. Clinical and radiographic analysis of cervical disc arthroplasty compared with allograft fusion: a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Neurosurg Spine 2007; 6: 198-209
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 8 Riew KD, Schenk-Kisser JM, Skelly AC. Adjacent segment disease and C-ADR: promises fulfilled?. Evid Based Spine Care J 2012; 3: 39-46
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 9 Laxer EB, Darden BV, Murrey DB et al. Adjacent segment disc pressures following two-level cervical disc replacement versus simulated anterior cervical fusion. Stud Health Technol Inform 2006; 123: 488-492
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 10 Lee MJ, Dumonski M, Phillips FM et al. Disc replacement adjacent to cervical fusion: a biomechanical comparison of hybrid construct versus two-level fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2011; 36: 1932-1939
    CrossrefSuche in Google Scholar
  • 11 Huppert J, Beaurain J, Steib JP et al. Comparison between single- and multi-level patients: clinical and radiological outcomes 2 years after cervical disc replacement. Eur Spine J 2011; 20: 1417-1426
    CrossrefSuche in Google Scholar
  • 12 Fritzell P, Hagg O, Wessberg P et al. 2001 Volvo Award Winner in Clinical Studies: Lumbar fusion versus nonsurgical treatment for chronic low back pain: a multicenter randomized controlled trial from the Swedish Lumbar Spine Study Group. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2001; 26: 2521-2532
    CrossrefSuche in Google Scholar
  • 13 Jacobs WC, van der Gaag NA, Kruyt MC et al. Total disc replacement for chronic discogenic low back pain: a cochrane review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2013; 38: 24-36
    CrossrefSuche in Google Scholar
  • 14 Blumenthal S, McAfee PC, Guyer RD et al. A prospective, randomized, multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemptions study of lumbar total disc replacement with the CHARITE artificial disc versus lumbar fusion: part I. evaluation of clinical outcomes. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2005; 30: 1565-1575
    CrossrefSuche in Google Scholar
  • 15 Zigler J, Delamarter R, Spivak JM et al. Results of the prospective, randomized, multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study of the ProDisc-L total disc replacement versus circumferential fusion for the treatment of 1-level degenerative disc disease. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2007; 32: 1155-1162
    CrossrefSuche in Google Scholar
  • 16 Gornet MF, Burkus JK, Dryer RF et al. Lumbar disc arthroplasty with Maverick disc versus stand-alone interbody fusion: a prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter investigational device exemption trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2011; 36: E1600-E1611
    CrossrefSuche in Google Scholar
  • 17 SariAli el-H, Lemaire JP, Pascal-Mousselard H et al. In vivo study of the kinematics in axial rotation of the lumbar spine after total intervertebral disc replacement: long-term results: a 10–14 years follow up evaluation. Eur Spine J 2006; 15: 1501-1510
    CrossrefSuche in Google Scholar
  • 18 Zigler JE, Delamarter RB. Five-year results of the prospective, randomized, multicenter, Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study of the ProDisc-L total disc replacement versus circumferential arthrodesis for the treatment of single-level degenerative disc disease. J Neurosurg Spine 2012; 17: 493-501
    CrossrefSuche in Google Scholar
  • 19 de Maat GH, Punt IM, van Rhijn LW et al. Removal of the Charite lumbar artificial disc prosthesis: surgical technique. J Spinal Disord Tech 2009; 22: 334-339
    CrossrefSuche in Google Scholar
  • 20 Lawrence BD, Wang J, Arnold PM et al. Predicting the risk of adjacent segment pathology after lumbar fusion: a systematic review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2012; 37: 123-132
    CrossrefSuche in Google Scholar
  • 21 Zigler JE, Glenn J, Delamarter RB. Five-year adjacent-level degenerative changes in patients with single-level disease treated using lumbar total disc replacement with ProDisc-L versus circumferential fusion. J Neurosurg Spine 2012; 17: 504-511
    CrossrefSuche in Google Scholar
  • 22 Wang JC, Arnold PM, Hermsmeyer JT et al. Do lumbar motion preserving devices reduce the risk of adjacent segment pathology compared with fusion surgery? A systematic review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2012; 37: 133-143
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 23 Hellum C, Berg L, Gjertsen O et al. Adjacent level degeneration and facet arthropathy after disc prosthesis surgery or rehabilitation in patients with chronic low back pain and degenerative disc: second report of a randomized study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2012; 37: 2063-2073
    CrossrefSuche in Google Scholar
  • 24 Nachanakian A, El HA, Alaywan M. The interspinous spacer: a new posterior dynamic stabilization concept for prevention of adjacent segment disease. Adv Orthop 2013; 637362
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 25 Zucherman JF, Hsu KY, Hartjen CA et al. A prospective randomized multi-center study for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis with the X STOP interspinous implant: 1-year results. Eur Spine J 2004; 13: 22-31
    CrossrefSuche in Google Scholar
  • 26 Richter A, Schutz C, Hauck M et al. Does an interspinous device (Coflex) improve the outcome of decompressive surgery in lumbar spinal stenosis? One-year follow up of a prospective case control study of 60 patients. Eur Spine J 2010; 19: 283-289
    CrossrefSuche in Google Scholar
  • 27 Davis RJ, Errico TJ, Bae H et al. Decompression and coflex interlaminar stabilization compared with decompression and instrumented spinal fusion for spinal stenosis and low-grade degenerative spondylolisthesis: two-year results from the prospective, randomized, multicenter, food and drug administration investigational device exemption trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2013; 38: 1529-1539
    CrossrefSuche in Google Scholar
  • 28 Bowers C, Amini A, Dailey AT et al. Dynamic interspinous process stabilization: review of complications associated with the X-Stop device. Neurosurg Focus 2010; 28: E8
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 29 Pfirrmann CW, Metzdorf A, Zanetti M et al. Magnetic resonance classification of lumbar intervertebral disc degeneration. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2001; 26: 1873-1878
    CrossrefSuche in Google Scholar
  • 30 Schulte TL, Hurschler C, Haversath M et al. The effect of dynamic, semi-rigid implants on the range of motion of lumbar motion segments after decompression. Eur Spine J 2008; 17: 1057-1065
    CrossrefSuche in Google Scholar
  • 31 Wilke HJ, Drumm J, Haussler K et al. Biomechanical effect of different lumbar interspinous implants on flexibility and intradiscal pressure. Eur Spine J 2008; 17: 1049-1056
    CrossrefSuche in Google Scholar
  • 32 Lindsey DP, Swanson KE, Fuchs P et al. The effects of an interspinous implant on the kinematics of the instrumented and adjacent levels in the lumbar spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2003; 28: 2192-2197
    CrossrefSuche in Google Scholar
  • 33 Hartjen CA, Resnick DK, Hsu KY et al. Two-Year Evaluation of the X-STOP Interspinous Spacer in Different Primary Patient Populations With Neurogenic Intermittent Claudication due to Lumbar Spinal Stenosis. J Spinal Disord Tech 2012;
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 34 Swanson KE, Lindsey DP, Hsu KY et al. The effects of an interspinous implant on intervertebral disc pressures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2003; 28: 26-32
    CrossrefSuche in Google Scholar
  • 35 Richards JC, Majumdar S, Lindsey DP et al. The treatment mechanism of an interspinous process implant for lumbar neurogenic intermittent claudication. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2005; 30: 744-749
    CrossrefSuche in Google Scholar
  • 36 Zucherman JF, Hsu KY, Hartjen CA et al. A multicenter, prospective, randomized trial evaluating the X STOP interspinous process decompression system for the treatment of neurogenic intermittent claudication: two-year follow-up results. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2005; 30: 1351-1358
    CrossrefSuche in Google Scholar
  • 37 Katz JN, Stucki G, Lipson SJ et al. Predictors of surgical outcome in degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1999; 24: 2229-2233
    CrossrefSuche in Google Scholar
  • 38 Siddiqui M, Smith FW, Wardlaw D. One-year results of X Stop interspinous implant for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2007; 32: 1345-1348
    CrossrefSuche in Google Scholar
  • 39 Lee J, Hida K, Seki T et al. An interspinous process distractor (X STOP) for lumbar spinal stenosis in elderly patients: preliminary experiences in 10 consecutive cases. J Spinal Disord Tech 2004; 17: 72-77
    CrossrefSuche in Google Scholar
  • 40 Kantelhardt SR, Torok E, Gempt J et al. Safety and efficacy of a new percutaneously implantable interspinous process device. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2010; 152: 1961-1967
    CrossrefSuche in Google Scholar
  • 41 Davis R, Auerbach JD, Bae H et al. Can low-grade spondylolisthesis be effectively treated by either coflex interlaminar stabilization or laminectomy and posterior spinal fusion? Two-year clinical and radiographic results from the randomized, prospective, multicenter US investigational device exemption trial. J Neurosurg Spine 2013; 19: 174-184
    CrossrefSuche in Google Scholar
  • 42 Verhoof OJ, Bron JL, Wapstra FH et al. High failure rate of the interspinous distraction device (X-Stop) for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis caused by degenerative spondylolisthesis. Eur Spine J 2008; 17: 188-192
    CrossrefSuche in Google Scholar
  • 43 Anderson PA, Tribus CB, Kitchel SH. Treatment of neurogenic claudication by interspinous decompression: application of the X STOP device in patients with lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. J Neurosurg Spine 2006; 4: 463-471
    CrossrefSuche in Google Scholar
  • 44 Epstein NE. X-Stop: foot drop. Spine J 2009; 9: e6-e9
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 45 Rubarth O, Kast E. Pedikelschrauben gestützte Systeme. . In: Börm W, Meyer F, (Hrsg). Spinale Neurochirurgie. Stuttgart New York: Schattauer; 2009: 352-354
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 46 Stoll TM, Dubois G, Schwarzenbach O. The dynamic neutralization system for the spine: a multi-center study of a novel non-fusion system. Eur Spine J 2002; 11 : 170-178
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 47 Hoppe S, Schwarzenbach O, Aghayev E et al. Long-term outcome after monosegmental l4/5 stabilization for degenerative spondylolisthesis with the Dynesys device. J Spinal Disord Tech 2012;
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 48 Bothmann M, Kast E, Boldt GJ et al. Dynesys fixation for lumbar spine degeneration. Neurosurg Rev 2008; 31: 189-196
    CrossrefSuche in Google Scholar
  • 49 Hoff E, Strube P, Gross C et al. Sequestrectomy with additional transpedicular dynamic stabilization for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation: no clinical benefit after 10 years follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2013; 38: 887-895
    CrossrefSuche in Google Scholar
  • 50 Putzier M, Hoff E, Tohtz S et al. Dynamic stabilization adjacent to single-level fusion: part II. No clinical benefit for asymptomatic, initially degenerated adjacent segments after 6 years follow-up. Eur Spine J 2010; 19: 2181-2189
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 51 Reyes-Sanchez A, Zarate-Kalfopulos B, Ramirez-Mora I et al. Posterior dynamic stabilization of the lumbar spine with the Accuflex rod system as a stand-alone device: experience in 20 patients with 2-year follow-up. Eur Spine J 2010; 19: 2164-2170
    CrossrefSuche in Google Scholar
  • 52 Strube P, Tohtz S, Hoff E et al. Dynamic stabilization adjacent to single-level fusion: part I. Biomechanical effects on lumbar spinal motion. Eur Spine J 2010; 19: 2171-2180
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 53 Stoffel M, Behr M, Reinke A et al. Pedicle screw-based dynamic stabilization of the thoracolumbar spine with the Cosmic-system: a prospective observation. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2010; 152: 835-843
    CrossrefSuche in Google Scholar