dynamic cervical implant; anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion; cervical spine; adjacent segement disease; cervical disk arthroplasty
Abstract :
[en] Objective To evaluate clinical and radiologic outcome in patients treated with a
dynamic cervical implant (DCI) or anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion (ACDF).
Study Design A prospective comparative cohort study.
Methods The study included 60 patients with one- or two-level cervical degenerative
disk disease (DDD) undergoing treatment with either DCI (n ¼ 30) or ACDF (n ¼ 30).
Clinical and radiologic outcomes were assessed 3 and 12 months after surgery. Clinical
scoring systems included the Visual Analog Scale for Neck (VAS-N) and Arm pain
(VAS-A), the Neck Pain and Disability Scale (NPAD), and the European Quality of Life
Scale (EQ-5D).
Results Both the DCI and ACDF group showed significant clinical improvement
12 months after surgery using the VAS-N (p ¼ 0.034 and p < 0.001, respectively),
VAS-A (p < 0.001 and p < 0.001, respectively), NPAD (p < 0.001 and p < 0.001,
respectively), and EQ-5D (p < 0.001 and p < 0.001, respectively). There were no
significant differences in clinical outcome comparing both groups at the 3- and
12-month follow-up. The fusion rate at 12 months after surgery was 39.4% and
80.0% in the DCI and ACDF groups, respectively. Radiolucency was found in 90.9% in
the DCI group at 12-month follow-up.
Conclusion The clinical results for DCI treatment are equivalent to those for ACDF in
the treatment of one- and two-level cervical DDD at 12 months after surgery. Further
studies are necessary to investigate the high rates of radiolucency and fusion associated
with DCI treatment.
Disciplines :
Surgery
Author, co-author :
Richter, Heiko; Hôpital Cantonal de St Gall > Neurochirurgie > Chef de clinique
Seule, Martin; Hôpital Cantonal de St Gall > Neurochirurgie > Chef de clinique
Hildebrandt, Gerhard; Hòpital Cantonal de St Gall > Neurochirurgie > Médecin chef de service
Papadopoulos E. C., Huang R. C., Girardi F. P., Synnott K., Cammisa F. P. Jr. Three-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with plate fixation: radiographic and clinical results. Spine: 2006; 31 8 897 902
Lee C. H., Hyun S. J., Kim M. J., et al. Comparative analysis of 3 different construct systems for single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: stand-alone cage, iliac graft plus plate augmentation, and cage plus plating. J Spinal Disord Tech: 2013; 26 2 112 118
Delamarter R. B., Zigler J. Five-year reoperation rates, cervical total disc replacement versus fusion, results of a prospective randomized clinical trial. Spine: 2013; 38 9 711 717
McAfee P. C., Reah C., Gilder K., Eisermann L., Cunningham B. A meta-analysis of comparative outcomes following cervical arthroplasty or anterior cervical fusion: results from 4 prospective multicenter randomized clinical trials and up to 1226 patients. Spine: 2012; 37 11 943 952
Seo M., Choi D. Adjacent segment disease after fusion for cervical spondylosis; myth or reality? Br J Neurosurg: 2008; 22 2 195 199
Lee S. H., Im Y. J., Kim K. T., Kim Y. H., Park W. M., Kim K. Comparison of cervical spine biomechanics after fixed- and mobile-core artificial disc replacement: a finite element analysis. Spine: 2011; 36 9 700 708
Chang U. K., Kim D. H., Lee M. C., Willenberg R., Kim S. H., Lim J. Changes in adjacent-level disc pressure and facet joint force after cervical arthroplasty compared with cervical discectomy and fusion. J Neurosurg Spine: 2007; 7 1 33 39
Welke B., Hurschler C., Packheiser A., et al. Biomechanical concept of a novel dynamic cervical implant: first biomechanical comparison among fusion, TDR and dynamic stabilization. Eur Spine J: 2010; 19 1963 2073
Welke B., Hurschler C., Schwarze M., et al. Biomechanical comparison between fusion, TDR and dynamic stabilization. Eur Spine J: 2011; 20 1979 2066
Mo Z. J., Zhao Y. B., Wang L. Z., Sun Y., Zhang M., Fan Y. B. Biomechanical effects of cervical arthroplasty with U-shaped disc implant on segmental range of motion and loading of surrounding soft tissue. Eur Spine J: 2014; 23 3 613 621
Li Z., Yu S., Zhao Y., et al. Clinical and radiologic comparison of dynamic cervical implant arthroplasty versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for the treatment of cervical degenerative disc disease. J Clin Neurosci: 2014; 21 6 942 948
Wang L., Song Y. M., Liu L. M., Liu H., Li T. Clinical and radiographic outcomes of dynamic cervical implant replacement for treatment of single-level degenerative cervical disc disease: a 24-month follow-up. Eur Spine J: 2014; 23 8 1680 1687
Phillips F. M., Carlson G., Emery S. E., Bohlman H. H. Anterior cervical pseudarthrosis. Natural history and treatment. Spine: 1997; 22 14 1585 1589
Hilibrand A. S., Carlson G. D., Palumbo M. A., Jones P. K., Bohlman H. H. Radiculopathy and myelopathy at segments adjacent to the site of a previous anterior cervical arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am: 1999; 81 4 519 528
Bremerich F. H., Grob D., Dvorak J., Mannion A. F. The Neck Pain and Disability Scale: cross-cultural adaptation into German and evaluation of its psychometric properties in chronic neck pain and C1-2 fusion patients. Spine: 2008; 33 9 1018 1027
Greiner W., Claes C., Busschbach J. JV, von der Schulenburg J. M. Validating the EQ-5D with time trade off for the German population. Eur J Health Econ: 2005; 6 2 124 130
EuroQol Group EuroQol--a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy: 1990; 16 3 199 208
Schluessmann E., Aghayev E., Staub L., Moulin P., Zweig T., Röder C.; SWISSspine Registry Group. SWISSspine: the case of a governmentally required HTA-registry for total disc arthroplasty: results of cervical disc prostheses. Spine: 2010; 35 24 E1397 E1405
Herdmann J., Buddenberg P., Rhee S., et al. A dynamic cervical disc replacement - in between fusion and prosthesis. Eur Spine J: 2009; 18 1713 1826
Herdmann J., Buddenberg P., Pilz A., et al. Can dynamic cervical disc replacement compete with to ACDF? Eur Spine J: 2010; 19 1963 2073
Matgé G., Eif M., Herdmann J. Dynamic cervical implant (DCITM): clinical results from an international multicenter prospective study. Paradigm Spine: 2015; 1 1 3
Auerbach J. D., Anakwenze O. A., Milby A. H., Lonner B. S., Balderston R. A. Segmental contribution toward total cervical range of motion: a comparison of cervical disc arthroplasty and fusion. Spine: 2011; 36 25 E1593 E1599
Jaumard N. V., Bauman J. A., Guarino B. B., et al. ProDisc cervical arthroplasty does not alter facet joint contact pressure during lateral bending or axial torsion. Spine: 2013; 38 2 E84 E93
Yukawa Y., Kato F., Suda K., Yamagata M., Ueta T. Age-related changes in osseous anatomy, alignment, and range of motion of the cervical spine. Part I: Radiographic data from over 1,200 asymptomatic subjects. Eur Spine J: 2012; 21 8 1492 1498
Garrido B. J., Taha T. A., Sasso R. C. Clinical outcomes of Bryan cervical disc arthroplasty a prospective, randomized, controlled, single site trial with 48-month follow-up. J Spinal Disord Tech: 2010; 23 6 367 371
Cunningham B. W., Hu N., Zorn C. M., McAfee P. C. Comparative fixation methods of cervical disc arthroplasty versus conventional methods of anterior cervical arthrodesis: serration, teeth, keels, or screws? J Neurosurg Spine: 2010; 12 2 214 220
Herdmann J., Buddenberg P., Pilz A., et al. Life quality after cervical reconstruction with dynamic cervical implant. Eur Spine J: 2011; 20 1979 2066
