Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Background: Cervical disc arthroplasty is a well-established alternative to anterior cervical fusion but requires precise placement for optimal outcomes. We present the case of a 2-level cervical disc arthroplasty with suboptimal implantation of the interbody devices, requiring revision corpectomy. Supplemental video, Supplemental Digital Content 1 (http://links.lww.com/CLINSPINE/A358) content of the revision surgery is also provided. This report highlights the importance of proper implant sizing and position and reviews the nuances of surgical revision.
Methods: A retrospective review of the clinical and radiographic data was performed from prior to the index operation through the 3-month postoperative period after the surgical revision.
Results: The patient presented approximately 2 years post-cervical arthroplasty with increasing neck pain and early cervical myelopathy. An imaging workup revealed severe cervical stenosis at the caudal level with cord compression and concern for device failure. Intraoperatively, the core of the caudal device was found to have ejected into the spinal canal. A cervical corpectomy of the intervening vertebra with the removal of both devices was performed. The patient had a complete neurologic recovery.
Conclusion: Although failure of a cervical disc arthroplasty device is rare, the likelihood can be significantly increased with poor sizing (over or under sizing), asymmetric placement, endplate violation, or poor patient selection. In the case presented herein, early device failure was unrecognized, and the patient went on to develop progressive cervical myelopathy requiring revision corpectomy.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0000000000001691 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!