Our study aims to evaluate the efficacy of Wallis implant in management of discogenic back pain. We have prospectively studied thirty patients between 2006 and 2007. Average age of patients was 40.8 years. Average follow-up period 20.6 months (9-28). Main inclusion criteria includes failure of conservative management of low back pain due to degenerative disc disease, preservation of 50% of the disc height and positive discographic features. In majority of the patients the implant was put in at the level of L4-L5. Pre-op and post op SF36 and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores were assessed during clinic follow-up and by telephonic interview. Mean SF36 score improved from thirty-seven (8.3 – 54.3) to 51.4. Mean ODI improved from forty-three (20-60) to 26.5(2-60) (p = 0.026). Complications including superficial infection occurred in one patient, deep infection in one patient, erosion of spinous process in one and displacement of the implant in one case. Three (10%) patients had revision surgery due to various reasons. Wallis interspinous dynamic stabilization system could be used as a soft stabilisation device avoiding fusion and short-term results are promising. In selected group of discogenic low back pain patients it is a useful interim procedure. Long-term follow-up of our series is ongoing

Aims

The purpose of this study was to investigate the risk of additional surgery in the lumbar spine and to describe long-term changes in patient-reported outcomes after surgery for lumbar disc herniation in adolescents and young adults.

Vertebral compression fractures are the most prevalent complication of osteoporosis and percutaneous vertebroplasty (PVP) has emerged as a promising addition to the methods of treating the debilitating pain they may cause.

Since PVP was first reported in the literature in 1987, more than 600 clinical papers have been published on the subject. Most report excellent improvements in pain relief and quality of life. However, these papers have been based mostly on uncontrolled cohort studies with a wide variety of inclusion and exclusion criteria. In 2009, two high-profile randomised controlled trials were published in the New England Journal of Medicine which led care providers throughout the world to question the value of PVP. After more than two decades a number of important questions about the mechanism and the effectiveness of this procedure remain unanswered.

Between January 1990 and December 2000 we carried out 226 SB Charité III disc replacements for lumbar disc degeneration in 160 patients. They were reviewed at a mean follow-up of 79 months (31 to 161) to determine the clinical and radiological outcome. The clinical results were collected by an independent observer, who was not involved in patient selection, treatment or follow-up, using a combination of outcome measures, including the Oswestry Disability Index. Pain was recorded using a visual analogue score, and the most recent radiographs were reviewed.

Survival of the device was analysed by the Kaplan-Meier method and showed a cumulative survival of 35% at 156 months when radiological failure was taken as the endpoint. The mean improvement in the Oswestry disability index scores after disc replacement was 14% (6% to 21%) and the mean improvement in the pain score was 1.6 (0.46 to 2.73), both falling below the clinically significant threshold. Removal of the implant was required in 12 patients, four because of implant failure.

These poor results indicate that further use of this implant is not justified.

We present data relating to the Bryan disc arthroplasty for the treatment of cervical spondylosis in 46 patients.

Patients with either radiculopathy or myelopathy had a cervical discectomy followed by implantation of a cervical disc prosthesis. Patients were reviewed at six weeks, six months and one year and assessment included three outcome measures, a visual analogue scale (VAS), the short form 36 (SF-36) and the neck disability index (NDI). The results were categorised according to a modification of Odom’s criteria. Radiological evaluation, by an independent radiologist, sought evidence of movement, stability and subsidence of the prosthesis.

A highly significant difference was found for all three outcome measurements, comparing the pre-operative with the post-operative values: VAS (Z = 6.42, p < 0.0001), SF-36 (mental component) (Z = −5.02, p < 0.0001), SF-36 (physical component) (Z = −5.00, p < 0.0001) and NDI (Z = 7.03, p < 0.0001). The Bryan cervical disc prosthesis seems reliable and safe in the treatment of patients with cervical spondylosis.