Cervical Footprint Anthropometry in Indian Population: Implications on Design of Artificial Disc Replacement Devices

Study DesignCross-sectional study.PurposeTo accurately measure the dimensions of cervical endplates based on computed tomography (CT) scans in Indian population and assess accuracy of match with currently available cervical disc prostheses.Overview of LiteratureThe dimensions of currently available cervical disc replacement implants are based on early published geometrical measurements of vertebrae endplates for Caucasian population. To author's knowledge, similar study has not been published for patients from Indian subcontinent.MethodsCT scans of cervical spine of patients from Indian subcontinent were collected and reviewed. Seventy patients (54 men and 16 women; aged 18–56 years with average of 37 years) who underwent CT scans of cervical spine were included in study. 3D CT scans of sub axial cervical spine (C3 to C7) were analyzed. The anterior-posterior (AP) and central mediolateral (CML) dimensions of superior and inferior endplates from C3 to C7 were measured using digital measuring system.ResultsA total of 560 endplates of 70 patients were included in the study. The AP diameter of cervical endplates ranged from 0.87 to 2.47 cm. The CML diameters ranged from 0.84 to 2.98 cm. For levels C3/C4 and C4/C5 for AP dimension Prestige-LP (90.5%) and Prodisc-C (89%) discs showed higher percentage of matching than Discover discs (58.5%). For CML diameter, Prestige-LP (69.5%), Prodisc-C (70%) and Discover (39.5%) discs showed almost similar matching with measured endplates. For levels C5/C6 and C6/C7 for AP dimension, Prestige-LP (67.25%), Prodisc-C (49.35%) and Discover (51.5%) discs showed similar matching. For CML diameter Prestige-LP (32%), Prodisc-C (27.5%) and Discover (42.2%) discs showed poor matching with measured endplates.ConclusionsThis study indicates need for redesign of cervical disc prostheses to match Indian patients. The collected anthropometric dimensions from this study may be used to design and develop indigenous artificial total disc replacement prosthesis and even cervical cages in India. With the present study being a small pilot study, the authors recommend anthropometric CT measurements in larger number of Indian patients in order to validate footprint dimensions for designing better-matched prosthesis

Safety Profile, Feasibility and Early Clinical Outcome of Cotransplantation of Olfactory Mucosa and Bone Marrow Stem Cells in Chronic Spinal Cord Injury Patients

Study DesignProspective case series.PurposeTo study the safety and feasibility of cotransplantation of bone marrow stem cells and autologous olfactory mucosa in chronic spinal cord injury.Overview of LiteratureStem cell therapies are a novel method in the attempt to restitute heavily damaged tissues. We discuss our experience with this modality in postspinal cord injury paraplegics.MethodsThe study includes 9 dorsal spine injury patients with American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) Impairment Scale (AIS) A neurological impairment who underwent de-tethering of the spinal cord followed by cotransplantation with bone marrow stem cells and an olfactory mucosal graft. Participants were evaluated at the baseline and at 6 monthly intervals. Safety and tolerability were evaluated through the monitoring for adverse events and magnetic resonance imaging evaluation. Efficacy assessment was done through neurological and functional outcome measures.ResultsSurgery was tolerated well by all participants. No significant difference in the ASIA score was observed, although differences in the Functional Independence Measure and Modified Ashworth Scale were statistically significant. No significant complication was observed in any of our patients, except for neurogenic pain in one participant. The follow-up magnetic resonance imaging evaluation revealed an increase in the length of myelomalacia in seven participants.ConclusionsThe cotransplantation of bone marrow stem cells and olfactory mucosa is a safe, feasible and viable procedure in AIS A participants with thoracic level injuries, as assessed at the 24-month follow-up. No efficacy could be demonstrated. For application, further large-scale multicenter studies are needed