Abstract

  The disc lesions, has led to a boom in cervical spine surgery, appearing in a wide variety of approach techniques, which involve the use of implants (prostheses -maintaining the mobility of segments, and cages -fusion of segments-) conceiving limitations in the surgical act, to predefine if they adapt to the dimensions required of the patient. The most of implants invented to treat the degenerative cervical spine are based in Caucasian or Asian populations leaving out Hispanic population.

General Objective: To establish the dimensions of the cervical endplate and the intersomatic space in a sample of Venezuelan adults.

Materials and Methods: A descriptive retrospective, cross-sectional study was carried out, with an intentional non-probabilistic sample, consisting of 121 subjects between 30 and 65 years old, who went to two centers of imagenelogy, in the north of Valencia, Venezuela.

Results: AP diameter was C2 to C6 15.07 mm, C7-T1 16.05 mm, related in 83.5% and 90.9% respectively to the reference parameters. Height of the intersomatic space 5.60 mm.

Conclusions: this study showed that there are no important morphometric differences with respect to other studies, but it was found that the values of the cages are greater than the data in this study. Likewise, the dimensions of the prostheses, although they have a standard average in their transverse diameter, are greater in height and depth. Therefore, the use of X-rays and MRI is necessary in the surgical planning and selection of the appropriate size of the instruments to be used to reduce the incidence of postoperative complications associated with the use of implants.

Keywords: Spinal Column; Disc Disease; Arthroplasty; Radiography; Magnetic Resonance Imaging

References

1. Ramírez M., et al. “Cervical disc herniation”. Ortopedia Traumatologia 54 (2010): 314-320.
2. OsornioJ. Advances in Spine Surger (2012).
3. Aebi A., et al. “Spine Manual: Principles and techniques”.  New York, USA. Ed. Aospine 1 (2007): 153.
4. Panjabi M., et al. “Cervical human vertebrae. Quantitative three-dimensional anatomy of the middle and lower regions”. The New England Journal of Medicine 16.8 (2011): 861-869.
5. Kim D., et al. “Dynamic Reconstruction of the Column”. 1st ed. New York, USA Ed Almoca (2008): 27.
6. Evangelopoulos P., et al. “Computerized Tomographic Morphometric Analysis of the Cervical Spine” The Open Orthopaedics Journal 6 (2012): 250-254. 
7. Kwon K. “Morphologic evaluation of cervical spine anatomy with computed tomography: anterior cervical plate fixation considerations”. Journal of Spinal Disorders and Techniques 17 (2008): 102-107. 
8. Synthes spine Inc. Modular disc prosthesis to restore the height of the intervertebral space and physiological mobility in the cervical spine (2012).
9. Abbott Spine Fidji cervical intersomatic fusion system [CD-ROM]. Bordeaux - France (2006).
10. Mark S and Greenberg H. “Neurosurgery Manual 1st edition. Buenos Aires, Argentina”. Education Journal (2004): 1278-1282.
11. Ministry of Popular Power for Science, Technology, Innovation and Intermediate Industries. Code of Ethics for Life. 2nd edition (2012). 
12. Bontrager M and Kenneth L. “Radiological Positions and Anatomical Correlation”. 5th edition”. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Medica Panamericana (2004): 287-289.
13. Fardon D., et al. “Updates in orthopedic surgery and traumatology”. Column 2. Ed. Ars medica (2007): 124-136.
14. Netter FH. “Nervous System Anatomy and Physiology”. 1st edition. Spain Ed. Masson. (2005): 230-235.
15. Scientx Alphatec Spine Inc. PCB Box - Cervical Plate (2012).
16. Mehren C and Mayer M. “Artificial cervical disc replacement - An update”. Review (2012). 
17. Vital J., et al. “The Mobi-C® cervical disc prosthesis: indications, technique and results”. Review New England Journal Medicine 3.4 (2008): 181-186. 
18. González F and Pinto M. “Comparison of results obtained in the treatment of degenerative cervical disc pathology between arthrodesis and arthroplasty (2012).              
19. Martin Q., et al. “The Incidence of Potential Candidates for Total Disc Replacement among Lumbar and Cervical Fusion Patient Populations”. Review PMC 5.4 (2011): 213-219. 
20. Hashimoto I and Tak Y. “The true sagittal diameter of the cervical spinal canal and its diagnostic significance in cervical myelopathy”. Pubmed Medical Review 47.6 (1977): 912-916. 
21. Busscher I., et al. “Comparative anatomical dimensions of the complete human and porcine spine”. European Spine Journal 9.7 (2010) :1104-1114.
22. Radiologyinfo Inc; Bone x-ray (2001).              
23. Wenger M and Markwalder T. “Bryan total disc arthroplasty: a replacement disc for cervical disc disease”. PMC Review 3 (2010): 11-24. 
24. Stanton P and Eck J. “Materials and design characteristics of cervical arthroplasty devices”. Review Techniques in Orthopedics 25.2 (2010): 93-96. 
25. Uschold T., et al. “Cervical and Lumbar Spinal Arthroplasty: Clinical Review”.  American Journal of Neuroradiology 33 (2012): 1631-1641. 

Citation

Citation: Alexis Antequera G., et al. “Morphometric Study of the Endplates and Intersomatic Spaces in Cervical Spine. Valencia Polyclinic Center - Venezuela. March - August 2013”.Acta Scientific Neurology 3.2 (2020): 28-36.

Copyright

Copyright: © 2020 Alexis Antequera G., et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.