Cervical disc replacement and anterior interbody fusion in the repair of middle-aged patients with cervical spondylosis: cervical function and range of motion

doi:10.3969/j.issn.2095-4344.2015.48.002

Abstract

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: The development of spinal non-fusion technology promoted movement function protection of adjacent segment and operating segment. In the treatment of cervical spondylosis surgery, non-fusion technology has been widely carried out. For middle-aged patients with cervical spondylosis, the demand for spinal joint movement function is high. Non-fusion technology can improve the postoperative quality of life and slow down the risk of adjacent segment degeneration.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical efficacy of anterior cervical different implant materials (fusion or non-fusion) in the treatment of single segment of the intervertebral disc degeneration of cervical spondylosis in middle-aged patients.
METHODS: This study enrolled 10 cases of single segmental radiculopathy and cervical myelopathy after cervical intervertebral disc replacement from June 2011 to June 2013. Simultaneously, 10 cases were randomly selected from patients with anterior interbody fusion as the control group. Before treatment, at 1 and 3 months, and 1 year after treatment, changes in range of motion of cervical vertebra were observed using imaging results. Therapeutic effects were assessed using Japanese Orthopaedic Association Scores, Visual Analog Scale and
The Neek Disability Index in both groups.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: All patients did not suffer from incision fat liquefaction, infection and delayed healing, and had finished follow-up for more than 1 year. Results revealed that Japanese Orthopaedic Association Scores and Visual Analog Scale scores were improved at 1 and 3 months, and 1 year after treatment (P < 0.05), and no significant difference was detected between the two groups (P > 0.05). In the analysis of range of motion of cervical vertebra and The Neek Disability Index, there were significant advantages in non-fusion treatment group (P < 0.05). For middle-aged patients with cervical spondylosis, due to its life demand for neck mobility, the repair program of non-fusion cervical intervertebral disc replacement has a clear advantage.

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

CLC Number:

R318

Jiang Xin-xiang, Xu Hai-dong, Lu Xiao. Cervical disc replacement and anterior interbody fusion in the repair of middle-aged patients with cervical spondylosis: cervical function and range of motion[J]. Chinese Journal of Tissue Engineering Research, 2015, 19(48): 7717-7723.

Figures/Tables 7

References

[1] Tabaraee E, Ahn J, Bohl DD, et al. The Impact of Worker's Compensation Claims on Outcomes and Costs Following an Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion.Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015;40(12):948-953.

[2] Dong J, Lu M, Lu T, et al. Meta-Analysis Comparing Zero-Profile Spacer and Anterior Plate in Anterior Cervical Fusion.PLoS One. 2015;10(6):e0130223

[3] Epstein NE, Roberts R, Collins J. Operative costs, reasons for operative waste, and vendor credit replacement in spinal surgery. Surg Neurol Int. 2015;6(Suppl 4):S186-189.

[4] Sun Y, Zhao YB, Pan SF, et al. Comparison of adjacent segment degeneration five years after single level cervical fusion and cervical arthroplasty: a retrospective controlled study.Chin Med J (Engl). 2012;125(22):3939-3941.

[5] Davis RJ, Kim KD, Hisey MS,et al.Cervical total disc replacement with the Mobi-C cervical artificial disc compared with anterior discectomy and fusion for treatment of 2-level symptomatic degenerative disc disease: a prospective, randomized, controlled multicenter clinical trial: clinical article.J Neurosurg Spine. 2013;19(5):532-545.

[6] Liu P, Zhao J, Liu F, et al.A novel operative approach for the treatment of old distractive flexion injuries of subaxial cervical spine.Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008;33(13):1459-1464.

[7] Heidecke V, Burkert W, Brucke M, et al.Intervertebral disc replacement for cervical degenerative disease--clinical results and functional outcome at two years in patients implanted with the Bryan cervical disc prosthesis. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2008;150(5):453-459.

[8] Zindrick MR, Spratt KF.Point of view: 5-year results of the FDA study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013;38(3):210.

[9] Koller H, Meier O, Zenner J, et al. In vivo analysis of cervical kinematics after implantation of a minimally constrained cervical artificial disc replacement. Eur Spine J. 2013;22(4): 747-758.

[10] de Beer N, Scheffer C.Reducing subsidence risk by using rapid manufactured patient-specific intervertebral disc implants. Spine J. 2012;12(11):1060-1066.

[11] Zigler JE, Delamarter R, Murrey D,et al.ProDisc-C and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion as surgical treatment for single-level cervical symptomatic degenerative disc disease: five-year results of a Food and Drug Administration study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013;38(3):203-209.

[12] Jawahar A, Nunley P.Total disc arthroplasty and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion in cervical spine: competitive or complimentary? Review of the literature. Global Spine J. 2012;2(3):183-186

[13] Tsermoulas G, Bhattathiri PS.Anterior migration of prosthesis following cervical arthroplasty. Br J Neurosurg. 2013;27(1): 132-133.

[14] Ding C, Hong Y, Liu H, et al.Intermediate clinical outcome of Bryan Cervical Disc replacement for degenerative disk disease and its effect on adjacent segment disks. Orthopedics. 2012;35(6):e909-916.

[15] Yang B, Li H, Zhang T,et al.The incidence of adjacent segment degeneration after cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA): a meta analysis of randomized controlled trials. PLoS One. 2012;7(4):e35032.

[16] Wu JC, Huang WC, Tsai HW, et al.Differences between 1- and 2-level cervical arthroplasty: more heterotopic ossification in 2-level disc replacement: Clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine. 2012;16(6):594-600.

[17] Tu TH, Wu JC, Fay LY, et al.Vertebral body split fracture after a single-level cervical total disc replacement. J Neurosurg Spine. 2012;16(3):231-235.

[18] Xia XP, Chen HL, Cheng HB.Prevalence of adjacent segment degeneration after spine surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013; 38(7):597-608.

[19] Harrod CC, Hilibrand AS, Fischer DJ, et al.Adjacent segment pathology following cervical motion-sparing procedures or devices compared with fusion surgery: a systematic review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012;37(22 Suppl):S96-S112.

[20] Lebl DR, Cammisa FP Jr, Girardi FP, et al.The mechanical performance of cervical total disc replacements in vivo: prospective retrieval analysis of prodisc-C devices. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012;37(26):2151-2160.

[21] Aghayev E, Bärlocher C, Sgier F, et al.Five-year results of cervical disc prostheses in the SWISSspine registry. Eur Spine J. 2013;22(8):1723-1730.

[22] Ryu WH, Kowalczyk I, Duggal N.Long-term kinematic analysis of cervical spine after single-level implantation of Bryan cervical disc prosthesis. Spine J. 2013;13(6): 628-634.

[23] 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.

[24] Helgeson MD, Bevevino AJ, Hilibrand AS.Update on the evidence for adjacent segment degeneration and disease. Spine J. 2013;13(3):342-351.

[25] Yin S, Yu X, Zhou S, et al.Is cervical disc arthroplasty superior to fusion for treatment of symptomatic cervical disc disease? A meta-analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471(6): 1904-1919.

[26] Cason GW, Herkowitz HN. Cervical intervertebral disc replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95(3):279-285.

[27] Viezens L, Schaefer C, Beyerlein J, et al.An incomplete paraplegia following the dislocation of an artificial cervical total disc replacement. J Neurosurg Spine. 2013;18(3): 255-259.

[28] Nunley PD, Jawahar A, Cavanaugh DA,et al. Symptomatic adjacent segment disease after cervical total disc replacement: re-examining the clinical and radiological evidence with established criteria. Spine J. 2013;13(1): 5-12.

[29] Xing D, Ma XL, Ma JX,et al.A meta-analysis of cervical arthroplasty compared to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for single-level cervical disc disease. J Clin Neurosci. 2013;20(7):970-978.

[30] Qin J, He X, Wang D,et al.Artificial cervical vertebra and intervertebral complex replacement through the anterior approach in animal model: a biomechanical and in vivo evaluation of a successful goat model. PLoS One. 2012;7(12): e52910.

[31] McDonald CP, Chang V, McDonald M,et al.Three-dimensional motion analysis of the cervical spine for comparison of anterior cervical decompression and fusion versus artificial disc replacement in 17 patients: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine. 2014;20(3):245-255.

[32] Verma K, Gandhi SD, Maltenfort M,et al. Rate of adjacent segment disease in cervical disc arthroplasty versus single-level fusion: meta-analysis of prospective studies. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013;38(26):2253-2257.

[33] Vaccaro A, Beutler W, Peppelman W, et al.Clinical outcomes with selectively constrained SECURE-C cervical disc arthroplasty: two-year results from a prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter investigational device exemption study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013;38(26):2227-2239.

[34] Wenger M, Markwalder TM. Posterior decompression salvages Bryan total disc arthroplasty in post-operatively recurrent uncoforaminal stenosis. J Clin Neurosci. 2014; 21(5):741-744.

[35] Nandyala SV, Marquez-Lara A, Fineberg SJ, et al. Comparison between cervical total disc replacement and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion of 1 to 2 levels from 2002 to 2009. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014;39(1):53-57.