Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
5/27/2016
1
MIS Posterior Cervical fusion
James B. Billys, MDAssociate Professor Department of Orthopaedics USF
Florida Orthopaedic Institute
Director of Research
Phillip Spiegel Orthopaedic Research Laboratory at FORE
Deborah Warren RN CCRC
Castellvi Spine 2016
Disclosures
Medtronic
Nuvasive
Alphatec
St. Jude
Centinel
Who did I forget?
Castellvi Spine 2016
Case JS46 y/o male 72” 205 lbs.
C/o neck pain with weakness numbness and tingling in parascapular areas.
S/P ACDF C4‐C7 1 year ago
Castellvi Spine 2016
5/27/2016
2
Case JS
CT scan .
Castellvi Spine 2016
Case JS
Castellvi Spine 2016
.
JSpinal Disord Tech. 2015 Mar;28(2):41‐6. doi: 10.1097/BSD.0b013e31829a37ac.Do CT scans overestimate the fusion rate after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion?Park DK1, Rhee JM, Kim SS, Enyo Y, YoshiokK.Author information: 1*Department of Orthopedic Surgery, William Beaumont Hospital, Royal Oak, MI †Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Emory Spine Center, Emory University, Atlanta, GA ‡Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Seoul Spine Institute, InjeUniversity Sanggye‐Paik Hospital, Seoul, Korea §Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Wakayama Medical University, Wakayama, Japan.AbstractDESIGN:This study is a radiographic analysis.OBJECTIVE:To compare the fusion rates after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) using x‐rays versus computerized tomography (CT).BACKGROUND:Although fusion status may be obvious when evaluating ACDFs performed in the remote past, determining the presence of a solid fusion at earlier time points after ACDF is often ambiguous but a necessary part of practice. Commonly used tools include radiographs and CT scans. Currently, there is no gold standard imaging modality to determine fusion status.METHODS:Twenty‐two patients status post‐ACDF (cortical allograft with anterior plates) at 34 levels with CT scans and dynamic x‐rays obtained at 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively were included. Four spine surgeons blinded to the time point independently determined fusion status according to the criteria.RESULTS:On the basis of the x‐ray criteria, the fusion rates were 26%, 41%, and 65% at 3, 6, and 12 months, respectively, postoperatively. On the basis of CT criteria, the fusion rates were 79%, 79%, and 91% at 3, 6, and 12 months, respectively. There was a significant difference in the predicted fusion rate at each time point comparing x‐ray versus CT criteria. In addition, at 3 months, 41% of the levels (11/27) thought to be fused by CT criteria demonstrated >1 mm motion on dynamic x‐rays. At 6 months, 33% (9/27) of the levels thought to be fused by CT demonstrated persistent motion of ≥1 mm. At 12 months, 23% (7/31) of the levels considered fused by CT still had persistent motion.DISCUSSION:X‐ray criteria for fusion, which incorporate both static and dynamic factors, predicted lower fusion rates at each time point when compared with CT scans, which evaluate only static factors. Depending on the time point, anywhere from 23% to 41% of levels thought to be fused by CT criteria demonstrated persistent motion on dynamic x‐rays. Although <1 mm motion is not a sufficient criteria for fusion by itself, levels demonstrating >1 mm motion are less likely to be solidly fused. Thus, we conclude that CT scans may overestimate the fusion rate during the early stages of ACDF healing with cortical allograft, and that CT scans alone may not accurately determine fusion status. Reliable determination of fusion may thus require dynamic information obtained from flexion‐extension x‐ray in association with high‐resolution static information from CT.
PMID: 23732186 [PubMed ‐ indexed for MEDLINE]
Castellvi Spine 2016
X ray Criteria for fusion‐static factors‐dynamic factors
CT‐ staticX ray predicted lower fusion rates vs CT
Conclusion: 33‐44% thought to be fused on CT‐demonstrated >1mm motion on Flex/Ext X ray
5/27/2016
3
Flex/ Ex Motion
Castellvi Spine 2016
C4‐5 remains stable C5‐6 10.6 mm movement C6‐7 8.7 mm movement
Technology Overview
Posterior Cervical Intervertebral Fusion Device
Tissue sparing
Indirect decompression
Stabilization and fusion
Castellvi Spine 2016
Mechanism of Action
Decompresssymptomatic nerve roots through facet distraction
Castellvi Spine 2016
10.0mmPre‐Op
13.2mmPost‐Op
DTRAX
StabilizeBy fusing the joint, Preventing translation
93% Fusion Rate @ 1 Year98% Fusion Rate @ 2 Years Implants packed with bone to promote fusion
5/27/2016
4
Indirect Decompression
Castellvi Spine 2016
20%+ Increase in Foraminal Area *
1.Buckley et. al Foramen distraction effectiveness of the DTRAX facet screw system 2.Tan et. al Effect of machined intra‐facet allograft on foraminal height and area
Pre‐Op 10.0mm
Post Op 13.2mm
Significant Stabilization
Castellvi Spine 2016
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
Lat Bending Flex‐Ex Axial Rota on
DTRAX
ACDF‐Plate
Preventing Facet Translation Limits Segmental Motion Similar to Plated ACDFUnpublished, Patwardhan et. al
How I use it
Castellvi Spine 2016
Adjacent Level, Non-Union after ACDF, facet arthrosis
Supplemental Stabilization & Posterior fusion with ACDF
5/27/2016
5
Case JS – what we did
Castellvi Spine 2016
DTRAX Stability
Biomechanical Stability of a Novel Posterior Cervical Fusion DeviceAvinash G. PatwardhanLoyola University Chicago, Edward Hines Jr. VA Hospital, 2014 (unpublished)
Evaluate acute stabilization for:• DTRAX vs ACDF, Single Level• ACDF vs ACDF + DTRAX, Single and 2-level
Conclusions• DTRAX Cervical Cage stabilization is comparable to the
ACDF construct in flexion-extension, lateral bending and axial rotation in a single level fusion.
• Supplementing ACDF with DTRAX will significantly increase stabilization in single and 2-level fusion.
Castellvi Spine 2016
Materials and Methods 7 Fresh frozen cervical spine cadavers
1.5 Nm moments applied in flexion/extension, lateral bending and axial rotation
Castellvi Spine 2016
5/27/2016
6
Study Design, Test Sequence
A. Intact (C2‐T1)
B. +C5‐C6 DTRAX
C. +C6‐C7 plated ACDF
Castellvi Spine 2016
Study Design, Test SequenceD. +C6‐C7 DTRAX
E. + C3‐C5 plated aCDF
F. + C3‐C4 and C4‐C5 DTRAX
Castellvi Spine 2016
Range of Motion
DTRAX and ACDF are similar in reducing range of motion
Castellvi Spine 2016
5/27/2016
7
DTRAX + ACDF, 1 Level
DTRAX stabilization significantly increase effectiveness of ACDF alone in 1‐level setting
Castellvi Spine 2016
Treatment of ACDF Non-Union
Castellvi Spine 2016
Is Posterior Fusion the Answer?
Castellvi Spine 2016
5/27/2016
8
Does it Fuse?
Clinical Data
Facet Surface Area comparable to Interbody Space
Fusion Distance in Facets shorter compared to Interbody Space
Castellvi Spine 2016
Does it Fuse?
Castellvi Spine 2016
Outcomes of this study
Castellvi Spine 2016
Patient Reported Improvement
5/27/2016
9
Retrospective Study
Retrospective Study of all subjects with Posterior Fusion with DTRAX
10 patients: 3 women 7 men
All s/p ACDF with Psuedoarthrosis and recurring pain symptoms
Castellvi Spine 2016
Materials and Methods
Collecting VAS (5 points‐ neck, right and left shoulder and right and left arm) Neck Disablilty IndexSF 12Neuro/Motor exam radiographs
Earliest subject is 22 months out. Early data suggests good relief of arm and shoulder pain
Castellvi Spine 2016
Outcomes 7 of the 11 patients are out 12 mos or betterFusion Rate is 100%
2 Complications 1 patient was re‐operated on for migration of the original DTRAX (before adding the bone screw) (first patient)
Castellvi Spine 2016
5/27/2016
10
Outcomes
2. Cage placed too close to nerve root‐
Castellvi Spine 2016
Is one of these good?
DTRAX Cases
Case 1; DBMale 49y/o 6’1” 225lbs.
Sheet/metal welder; electro mechanic
c/o neck pain and parascapular pain w/ h/w and n/t on both upper extremities
Post ACDF C5‐C7 (1998 and 1999) and broken hardware revisions (2002) outside of FOI
Posterior laminectomy/cervical spinal cord stimulator (July 2013)
Post RFA C2‐C6 (September 2013)
Castellvi Spine 2016
Case DB (pre-op)
Castellvi Spine 2016
5/27/2016
11
Case DB (pre-op)
Castellvi Spine 2016
Case DB
Case 1; DB Procedure
Preoperative Diagnosis:
C7‐T1 radiculopathy
Facet arthropathy
Cerival Post‐Laminectomy Syndrome
Procedures Performed:
C7‐T1 Posterior Fusion
Insertion of DTRAX cervical cage
Castellvi Spine 2016
Case DB (post-op)
Castellvi Spine 2016
5/27/2016
12
Case DB Post-op fusion
Castellvi Spine 2016
DTRAX Cases
Case 2; MC
Female 50y/o 5’1” 110lbs.
Sales manager
c/o neck pain w/ h/a and muscle tension
S/P C5‐C7 ACDF (October 2012)
Pseudoarthrosis
Castellvi Spine 2016
Case MC (pre-op)
Castellvi Spine 2016
5/27/2016
13
Case MC (post-op)
Castellvi Spine 2016
Case MC (post-op)
Castellvi Spine 2016
C5‐C6
C6‐C7
Case MC (post-op)
Castellvi Spine 2016
5/27/2016
14
Case MC (post-op)
Castellvi Spine 2016
Several months later
Symptoms returned‐
MRI revealed anterolisthesisof C7 on T1
And modic changes at C4‐C5
Castellvi Spine 2016
Case MC
Castellvi Spine 2016
5/27/2016
15
Summary
Our preliminary data at 1 year demonstrates that percutaneous distraction and fusion using the DTRAX facet system is a safe and effective treatment option with cervical psuedoarthrosis.
Thank you
Castellvi Spine 2016
JBB FOI Tampa2015
JBB FOI Tampa2015
5/27/2016
16
Castellvi Spine 2016
Castellvi Spine 2016
Castellvi Spine 2016
5/27/2016
17
Castellvi Spine 2016
Castellvi Spine 2016
Castellvi Spine 2016