Artificial cervical disc replacement: range of motion of replacement segment and degeneration of adjacent segments

doi:10.3969/j.issn.2095-4344.2015.17.009

Abstract

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: In recent years, artificial cervical disc replacement surgery as a new method for the treatment of cervical disease has gradually been accepted and understood, but relevant complications have gradually attracted attention.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the clinical outcomes of artificial cervical disc replacement in the treatment of cervical disease and the range of motion of the replacement segment.

METHODS: A total of 25 patients with artificial cervical disc replacement in the treatment of cervical spondylosis, who were treated in the Department of Orthopedics, Air Force General Hospital of Chinese PLA from August 2006 to April 2012, were enrolled in this study, including 15 males and 10 females, aged 31-76 years, averagely 51.04 years. There were 6 cases of double segments and 19 cases of single segment. They were followed up for 24 to 93 months. Clinical results were assessed using the Japanese Orthopaedic Association score, cervical dysfunction index and pain visual analog scale scores. Imaging was used to observe range of motion, cervical curvature, heterotopic ossification, and degeneration of adjacent segments.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Neurological function in all patients was improved to different degrees. One case suffered from mild heterotopic ossification, but no clinical symptoms were found. No significant difference in range of motion of surgical segment, and range of motion of upper and lower adjacent segments was detected between pre-replacement and final follow-up results (P > 0.05). No significant difference in range of motion of C₂-C₇ was found between pre-replacement and final follow-up results (P > 0.05). Japanese Orthopaedic Association score, cervical dysfunction index and pain visual analog scale scores were significantly improved during final follow-up compared with pre-replacement (P < 0.05). These results indicated that artificial cervical disc replacement in the treatment of cervical disease can achieve better clinical efficacy, can keep the range of motion of replacement segment and avoid the accelerated degeneration of adjacent segments.

中国组织工程研究杂志出版内容重点：人工关节；骨植入物；脊柱；骨折；内固定；数字化骨科；组织工程

全文链接：

Key words: Cervical Vertebrae, Intervertebral Disk, Follow-Up Studies

CLC Number:

R318

Chen Xuan-yu, Wu Ji, Zheng Chao, Huang Rong-rong, Cui Yu-ming, Shang Yong, Fan Heng-hua, Yu Pan-feng, Zhao Xu-hong, Chu Dong. Artificial cervical disc replacement: range of motion of replacement segment and degeneration of adjacent segments[J]. Chinese Journal of Tissue Engineering Research, 2015, 19(17): 2672-2676.

Figures/Tables 3

References

[1]Heller J, Sasso RC, Papadopoulos SM, et al.Comparison of BRYAN cervical disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical decompression and fusion: clinical and radiographic results of a randomized, controlled, clinical trial.Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009;34(2):101-107.
[2]McAfee PC,Cunningham BW, Devine J, et al.Classification of heterotopic ossification(HO)in artificial disk replacement. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2003;16(4):384-389．
[3]Peng CW, Yue WM, Basit A, et al.Intermediate Results of the Prestige LP Cervical Disc Replacement:Clinical and Radiological Analysis With Minimum Two-Year Follow-up. Spine-(Phila-Pa-1976). 2011; 36(2): E105-111.
[4]Mummanene PV, Burkus JK, Haid RW, et al. Clinical and radiographic analysis of cervical disc arthroplasty compared with allograft fusion: a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Neurosurg Spine. 2007;6(3):198-209.
[5]Fourney DR, Skelly AC, DeVine JG.Treatment of cervical adjacent segment pathology: a systematic review. Spine ( Phila Pa 1976). 2012;37(22 Suppl):S113-122.
[6]Ponnappan RK, Hilibrand AS. Adjacent segment disease of the cervical spine: fact or fiction. Curr Orthop Proc. 2008; 19(4):420-424.
[7]Helgeson MD,Bevevino AJ,Hilibrand AS.Update on the evidence for adjacent segment degeneration and disease. Spine J. 2013;13(3):342-351.
[8]Matsumoto M, Okada E, Ichhara D, et al. Anterior cervical decompression and fusion accelerates adjacent segment degeneration: comparison with asymptomatic volunteers in a ten-year magnetic resonance imaging follow-up study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010;35(1):36-43.
[9]Cason GW, Herkowitz HN.Cervical intervertebral disc replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95(3):279-285．
[10]Beaurain J, Bernard P, Dufour T, et al. Intermediate clinical and radiological results of cervical TDR (Mobi-C) with up to 2 years of follow-up. Eur Spine J. 2009;18(6):841-850.
[11]Jan G, Johan VL,Frank VC, et al.A clinical analysis of 4- and 6-year follow-up results after cervical disc replacement surgery using the Bryan Cervical Disc Prosthesis.J Neurosurg Spine. 2010;12(3):261-269.
[12]Tan SH,Teo EC,Chua HC,et al.Quantitative three-dimensional anatomy of cervical, thoracic and lumbar vertebrae of Chinese Singaporeans. Eur Spine J.2004;13(2):137-146.
[13]Kim MK,Kwak DS,Park CK,et al.Quantitative anatomy of the endplate of the middle and lower cervical vertebrae in Koreans.Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007;32(14):E376-381.
[14]王岩.对颈椎人工椎间盘置换术的远期疗效需进一步评估[J].中国脊柱脊髓杂,2012,22(10):865-866.
[15]蓝旭,许建中,刘雪梅,等.Bryan人工颈椎间盘置换术后疗效评价及并发症分析[J].中国骨伤,2013,26(3):182-185.
[16]Suchomel P, Jurak L, Banes V 3rd, et al. Clinical results and development of heterotopic ossification in total cervical disc replacement during a 4-year follow-up．Eur Spine J. 2010 19(2):307-315.
[17]Yi S, Kim KN, Yang MS, et al.Difference in occurrence of heterotopic ossification according to prosthesis type in the cervical artificial disc replacement.Spine(Phila Pa 1976). 2010;35(16):1556-1561．
[18]Yi S, Shin DA, Kim KN, et al.The predisposing factors for the heterotopic ossification after cervical artificial disc replacement. Spine J. 2013;13(9):1048-1054.
[19]Barna M, Kryl J. ProDisc-C Total Disc Replacement.A Four-Year Prospective Monocentric Study. Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cech. 2012; 79(6):512-519.
[20]Du J, Li M, Liu H, et al. Early follow up outcomes after treatment of degenerative disc disease with the discover cervical disc prosthesis.Spine J. 2011;11(4):281-289.
[21]Huppert J, Beaurain J, Steib JP, et al. Comparison between single- and multi-level patients: clinical and radiological outcomes 2 years after cervical disc replacement. Eur Spine J. 2011;20(9):1417-1426.