Sign in to use this feature.

Years

Between: -

Subjects

remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline

Journals

Article Types

Countries / Regions

Search Results (4)

Search Parameters:
Keywords = expandable vertebral body replacement

Order results
Result details
Results per page
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
15 pages, 7082 KiB  
Article
Anterior Cervical and Upper Thoracic Column Reconstruction Using an Expandable Poly-Ether-Ether-Ketone Vertebral Body Replacement: A Retrospective Single Center Cohort Analysis
by Martin Štefanides, Katharina A. C. Oswald, Anaïs K. Luyet, Christoph E. Albers, Lorin M. Benneker and Moritz C. Deml
Surg. Tech. Dev. 2024, 13(2), 107-121; https://doi.org/10.3390/std13020008 - 12 Apr 2024
Viewed by 1596
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a novel Poly-Ether-Ether-Ketone (PEEK) expandable vertebral body replacement (VBR) for anterior cervico-thoracic vertebral column reconstruction in patients with metastatic, traumatic, or degenerative diseases. Radiographic and clinical outcomes, as well as complication rates, were [...] Read more.
This study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a novel Poly-Ether-Ether-Ketone (PEEK) expandable vertebral body replacement (VBR) for anterior cervico-thoracic vertebral column reconstruction in patients with metastatic, traumatic, or degenerative diseases. Radiographic and clinical outcomes, as well as complication rates, were analyzed in a retrospective analysis of 28 patients (61 ± 13 years; 64% female) who underwent an anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion (ACCF) with the Expandable Corpectomy Device (ECD) from DePuy/Synthes (2011–2020). Correction of the bisegmental kyphotic angle (BKA) was chosen as the primary outcome. Bony fusion, loss of device height, and implant subsidence were evaluated additionally. Clinical outcome was assessed using Odom’s criteria, the numerical pain rating scale (NRS), the American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale (AIS), and the Karnofsky Performance Status Scale (KPSS). Our study found a significant improvement in the BKA (12.3° ± 9.6°; p = 0.0002) at the last follow-up with no statistically relevant loss of device height (p = 0.96) or implant subsidence (p = 0.99). Successful bony fusion was observed in all patients. The KPSS significantly improved in patients with a tumorous disease at the time of discharge (p = 0.0009), and the sensation of pain showed significant improvement at six months post-operatively and at the final follow-up (p = 0.004; p = 0.021). However, four patients needed further secondary posterior stabilization, and one ECD was explanted due to a severe surgical site infection after an accidental esophageal lesion. In conclusion, the ECD proofed the radiographic stability for the anterior column reconstruction of the cervico-thoracic spine with significantly improved clinical outcome. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

11 pages, 1472 KiB  
Article
Anterior Column Reconstruction of Destructive Vertebral Osteomyelitis at the Thoracolumbar Spine with an Expandable Vertebral Body Replacement Implant: A Retrospective, Monocentric Radiological Cohort Analysis of 24 Cases
by Lisa Klute, Marie Esser, Leopold Henssler, Moritz Riedl, Melanie Schindler, Markus Rupp, Volker Alt, Maximilian Kerschbaum and Siegmund Lang
J. Clin. Med. 2024, 13(1), 296; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13010296 - 4 Jan 2024
Cited by 3 | Viewed by 1926
Abstract
Background: Vertebral osteomyelitis (VO) often necessitates surgical intervention due to bone loss-induced spinal instability. Anterior column reconstruction, utilizing expandable vertebral body replacement (VBR) implants, is a recognized approach to restore stability and prevent neurological compromise. Despite various techniques, clinical evidence regarding the safety [...] Read more.
Background: Vertebral osteomyelitis (VO) often necessitates surgical intervention due to bone loss-induced spinal instability. Anterior column reconstruction, utilizing expandable vertebral body replacement (VBR) implants, is a recognized approach to restore stability and prevent neurological compromise. Despite various techniques, clinical evidence regarding the safety and efficacy of these implants in VO remains limited. Methods: A retrospective cohort analysis, spanning 2000 to 2020, was conducted on 24 destructive VO cases at a Level 1 orthopedic trauma center. Diagnosis relied on clinical, radiological, and microbiological criteria. Patient demographics, clinical presentation, surgical interventions, and radiological outcomes were assessed. Results: The study included 24 patients (62.5% male; mean age 65.6 ± 35.0 years), with 58% having healthcare-associated infections (HAVO). The mean radiological follow-up was 137.2 ± 161.7 weeks. Surgical intervention significantly improved the bi-segmental kyphotic endplate angle (BKA) postoperatively (mean −1.4° ± 13.6°). However, a noticeable loss of correction was observed over time. The study reported a mortality rate of 1/24. Conclusions: Anterior column reconstruction using expandable VBR effectively improved local spinal alignment in destructive VO. However, the study underscores the necessity for prolonged follow-up and continuous research to refine surgical techniques and postoperative care. Addressing long-term complications and refining surgical approaches will be pivotal as the field progresses. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Spinal Infections: Pathogenesis, Diagnosis, Management and Outcomes)
Show Figures

Figure 1

12 pages, 3104 KiB  
Article
Radiological Evaluation of Combined Anteroposterior Fusion with Vertebral Body Replacement Using a Minimally Invasive Lateral Approach for Osteoporotic Vertebral Fractures: Verification of Optimal Surgical Procedure
by Takumi Takeuchi, Kenichiro Yamagishi, Kazumasa Konishi, Hideto Sano, Masato Takahashi, Shoichi Ichimura, Hitoshi Kono, Masaichi Hasegawa and Naobumi Hosogane
J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11(3), 629; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11030629 - 26 Jan 2022
Cited by 8 | Viewed by 2660
Abstract
The combined anteroposterior fusion with vertebral body replacement (VBR) using a wide footplate expandable cage with a minimally invasive lateral approach has been widely used for pseudoarthrosis after osteoporotic vertebral fractures. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the radiological results of [...] Read more.
The combined anteroposterior fusion with vertebral body replacement (VBR) using a wide footplate expandable cage with a minimally invasive lateral approach has been widely used for pseudoarthrosis after osteoporotic vertebral fractures. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the radiological results of combined anteroposterior surgery using VBR and to recommend the optimal procedure. Thirty-eight elderly patients were included in this study. The mean preoperative local kyphosis angle was 29.3°, and the mean correction loss angle was 6.3°. Cage subsidence was observed in ten patients (26.3%), and UIV or LIV fracture in twelve patients (31.6%). Patients with cage subsidence were compared to those without cage subsidence to determine the causal factors. The mean number of fixed vertebrae was 5.4 vertebrae with cage subsidence and 7.4 vertebrae without cage subsidence. In addition, to precisely clarify the optimal number of fixed vertebrae, those patients with two above–two below fixation were compared to those with less than two above–two below fixation, which revealed that the correction loss angle was significantly less in two above–two below fixation (p = 0.016). Based on these results, we recommend at least two above–two below fixation with VBR to minimize the correction loss angle and prevent cage subsidence. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Minimally Invasive Spinal Treatment: State of the Art)
Show Figures

Figure 1

11 pages, 2866 KiB  
Article
Biomechanical Study of a Novel, Expandable, Non-Metallic and Radiolucent CF/PEEK Vertebral Body Replacement (VBR)
by Daniel Adler, Michael Akbar, Anna Spicher, Stephanie-Alice Goerke and Werner Schmoelz
Materials 2019, 12(17), 2732; https://doi.org/10.3390/ma12172732 - 26 Aug 2019
Cited by 22 | Viewed by 4496
Abstract
Vertebral body replacement is well-established to stabilize vertebral injuries due to trauma or cancer. Spinal implants are mainly manufactured by metallic alloys; which leads to artifacts in radiological diagnostics; as well as in radiotherapy. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the [...] Read more.
Vertebral body replacement is well-established to stabilize vertebral injuries due to trauma or cancer. Spinal implants are mainly manufactured by metallic alloys; which leads to artifacts in radiological diagnostics; as well as in radiotherapy. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the biomechanical data of a novel carbon fiber reinforced polyetheretherketone (CF/PEEK) vertebral body replacement (VBR). Six thoracolumbar specimens were tested in a six degrees of freedom spine tester. In all tested specimens CF/PEEK pedicle screws were used. Two different rods (CF/PEEK versus titanium) with/without cross connectors and two different VBRs (CF/PEEK prototype versus titanium) were tested. In lateral bending and flexion/extension; range of motion (ROM) was significantly reduced in all instrumented states. In axial rotation; the CF/PEEK combination (rods and VBR) resulted in the highest ROM; whereas titanium rods with titanium VBR resulted in the lowest ROM. Two cross connectors reduced ROM in axial rotation for all instrumentations independently of VBR or rod material. All instrumented states in all planes of motion showed a significantly reduced ROM. No significant differences were detected between the VBR materials in all planes of motion. Less rigid CF/PEEK rods in combination with the CF/PEEK VBR without cross connectors showed the smallest reduction in ROM. Independently of VBR and rod material; two cross connectors significantly reduced ROM in axial rotation. Compared to titanium rods; the use of CF/PEEK rods results in higher ROM. The stiffness of rod material has more influence on the ROM than the stiffness of VBR material. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Back to TopTop