Zitat
dass reine Spekulation oder anekdotenhafte Zusammenstellungen von Einzelfällen irgendwie nicht helfen.
Komplette Version Wissenschaftliche Studie peek-cage versus Prothese
Moin moin zusammen,
nun dem schliesse ich mich an, gebetsmühlenartige subjektive Beiträge bringen keinen weiter und dienen nicht der Information.
Das Gebiet der Prothese im WS Bereich ist nun mal noch nicht so alt das gesicherte Infos vorliegen.
Wenn einer 100% Infos gesichert durch eine wissenschaftliche Studie hat, her damit, aber nur subjektives Empfinden, Nein Danke.
In diesem Sinne, Harro
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2989191/
"Furthermore, in the two low risks of bias studies [10, 52], the re-operation rates in the TDR group are slightly higher than in the fusion group. However, this has to be balanced against the fact that re-operation procedures for TDR are more complex.
The use of intervertebral disc prostheses as an alternative to spinal fusion has been advocated to preserve segmental motion and to prevent adjacent degeneration. However, there is no consensus on this subject in literature. Some studies suggest adjacent level degeneration is prevented after TDR [6, 12]. However, other studies show adjacent disc degeneration after TDR [61, 81]. This could be the result of the DDD itself, spreading to multiple levels of the spine, and/or be a consequence of stresses on adjacent levels, generated from unphysiological motion and functioning of the disc prosthesis [61]. Moreover, there is little knowledge regarding complications on the long term. Putzier et al. [81] published a retrospective study with 17 years follow-up and reoperation was necessary in 11% of patients. It is important to know more about long-term complications because most operated patients are of relatively young age, between 30 and 50 years. A disc prosthesis used for TDR should survive for at least 40 years. It is very questionable if the lifetime of the designs now available will be that long as little is known about long-term behaviour of biomaterials in the spine. We do know that revision surgery can be dangerous because of adherence to great vessels and the nerve plexus. Studies that review long-term complications and longevity of the prostheses are highly recommended."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26230424
"CONCLUSIONS This device maintains mean postoperative segmental motion while providing the potential for biomechanical stability. Investigational patients reported significantly improved clinical outcomes compared with baseline, at least noninferior to ACDF, up to 24 months after surgery."
"Furthermore, in the two low risks of bias studies [10, 52], the re-operation rates in the TDR group are slightly higher than in the fusion group. However, this has to be balanced against the fact that re-operation procedures for TDR are more complex.
The use of intervertebral disc prostheses as an alternative to spinal fusion has been advocated to preserve segmental motion and to prevent adjacent degeneration. However, there is no consensus on this subject in literature. Some studies suggest adjacent level degeneration is prevented after TDR [6, 12]. However, other studies show adjacent disc degeneration after TDR [61, 81]. This could be the result of the DDD itself, spreading to multiple levels of the spine, and/or be a consequence of stresses on adjacent levels, generated from unphysiological motion and functioning of the disc prosthesis [61]. Moreover, there is little knowledge regarding complications on the long term. Putzier et al. [81] published a retrospective study with 17 years follow-up and reoperation was necessary in 11% of patients. It is important to know more about long-term complications because most operated patients are of relatively young age, between 30 and 50 years. A disc prosthesis used for TDR should survive for at least 40 years. It is very questionable if the lifetime of the designs now available will be that long as little is known about long-term behaviour of biomaterials in the spine. We do know that revision surgery can be dangerous because of adherence to great vessels and the nerve plexus. Studies that review long-term complications and longevity of the prostheses are highly recommended."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26230424
"CONCLUSIONS This device maintains mean postoperative segmental motion while providing the potential for biomechanical stability. Investigational patients reported significantly improved clinical outcomes compared with baseline, at least noninferior to ACDF, up to 24 months after surgery."
Moin moin
der letzte Satz ist der Beste
Googleübersetzung:
der letzte Satz ist der Beste
Googleübersetzung:
Zitat
Die vorhandenen Nachweise, insbesondere in Bezug auf die langfristige Wirksamkeit und / oder Sicherheit,
werden als nicht ausreichend angesehen, um die weitverbreitete Verwendung von TDR gegenüber der Fusion für
eine degenerative Bandscheibe auf einer einzigen Ebene zu rechtfertigen.
Es wird empfohlen, die Operation der Bandscheibenoperation zu diesem Zeitpunkt nur im Rahmen von prospektiven
wissenschaftlichen Studien durchzuführen, bis eine weitere Dokumentation ihrer Effizienz vorliegt.
werden als nicht ausreichend angesehen, um die weitverbreitete Verwendung von TDR gegenüber der Fusion für
eine degenerative Bandscheibe auf einer einzigen Ebene zu rechtfertigen.
Es wird empfohlen, die Operation der Bandscheibenoperation zu diesem Zeitpunkt nur im Rahmen von prospektiven
wissenschaftlichen Studien durchzuführen, bis eine weitere Dokumentation ihrer Effizienz vorliegt.
Also so nach dem Motto, nichts genaues weiss man nicht bis gesicherte Langzeitstudien vorhanden sind
In diesem Sinne, Harro
