Short- and medium-term efficacy of artificial cervical disc replacement versus fusion for cervical spondylosis

doi:10.3969/j.issn.2095-4344.2014.31.006

Abstract

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: Recently, non-fusion technology representing as artificial cervical disc replacement continues to improve. On the basis of reconstruction of disc structure and function of involved segments, cervical spine structure of surgery area segment is significantly close to dynamic and static load stress distribution required by natural physiological systems. It effects are apparent in protecting intervertebral facet joints of degenerated segment and structure and function of the cervical spine of adjacent segments and in maintaining cervical dynamic stability, which presented obvious methodological strengths compared with segmental fusion technology.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical outcomes of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion and Bryan artificial cervical disc replacement in the treatment of single-level cervical spondylotic myelopathy or radiculopathy.
METHODS: A total of 43 middle and old age patients with single-level cervical spondylotic myelopathy or radiculopathy, who were treated from March 2010 to March 2012, were enrolled in this study. They were randomly assigned to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion group (fusion group) and Bryan artificial cervical disc replacement group. Range-of-motion of cervical overall and adjacent intervertebral area near the intervertebral space was observed with radiography. During follow-up, postoperative recovery of neurological function was evaluated using Japanese Orthopaedic Association scale, visual analog scale and neck disability index.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: None patients experienced complications of neurovascular injury during and after the surgery. Range-of-motion of postoperative overall cervical vertebra and adjacent joint was improved in the Bryan artificial cervical disc replacement group compared with the fusion group. Neurological function was apparently improved after surgery in each group. At 3 months after surgery, scores of Japanese Orthopaedic Association, visual analog scale and neck disability index were significantly improved in the Bryan artificial cervical disc replacement group compared with the fusion group (P < 0.05). During final follow-up, there were significant differences in visual analog scale scores between the two groups. Japanese Orthopaedic Association scale score and neck disability index score were similar between the two groups. During follow-up, no prosthesis sinking, displacement or heterotopic ossification were detected. These data indicated that artificial cervical disc replacement could effectively keep the range of motion of cervical segments and protect disc degeneration of adjacent segment. Mid-term follow up obtained similar improvement of neurological function of fusion surgery. The moderate-term and short-term efficacies of non-fusion technology were better than fusion technology in the treatment of single-level cervical spondylopathy

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, internal fixators, spinal fusion, diskectomy

CLC Number:

R318

Gao Ming-yong, Tao Hai-ying, Wei Ai-lin, He Bin. Short- and medium-term efficacy of artificial cervical disc replacement versus fusion for cervical spondylosis[J]. Chinese Journal of Tissue Engineering Research, 2014, 18(31): 4950-4956.

Figures/Tables 3

References

[1] Cloward RB. Cervical diskography; technique, indications and use in diagnosis of ruptured cervical disks. Am J Roentgenol Radium Ther Nucl Med. 1958;79:563-574.
[2] Bose B. Anterior cervical fusion using Caspar plating:analysis of results and review of the literature. Surg Neurol. 1998;49:25-31.
[3] Goffin J, Geusens E, Vantomme N, et al. Long-term follow-up after interbody fusion of the cervical spine. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2004;17:79-85.
[4] Saavedra-Pozo FM, Deusdara RA, Benzel EC. Adjacent Segment Disease Perspective and Review of the Literature. Ochsner J. 2014;14(1):78-83.
[5] Lazaro BC , Yucesoy K , Yuksel KZ , et al. Effect of arthroplasty design on cervical spine kinematics: analysis of the Bryan Disc,ProDisc-C, and Synergy disc. Neurosurg Focus. 2010; 28: E6.
[6] Duggal N, Bertagnoli R, Rabin D, et al. ProDisc-C: an in vivo kinematic study. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2011;24:334-339.
[7] Park DK, Lin EL, Phillips FM. Index and adjacent level kinematics after cervical disc replacement and anterior fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011;36(9): 721-730.
[8] Jaumard NV, Bauman JA, Guarino BB, et al. ProDisc cervical arthroplasty does not alter facet joint contact pressure during lateral bending or axial torsion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013;38(2):E84-93.
[9] 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.
[10] 胥少汀.实用骨科学[M]. 4版.北京:人民军医出版社,2012: 1986-1990.
[11] Nikaido T, Kikuchi S, Yabuki S, et al. Surgical treatment assessment using the Japanese orthopedic association cervical myelopathy evaluation questionnaire in patients with cervical myelopathy: a new outcome measure for cervical myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009; 34(23):2568-2572.
[12] Pietrobon R, Coeytaux R, Carey T, et al. Standard scales for measurement of functional outcome for cervical pain or dysfunction. Spine. 2002;27:515-522.
[13] Wu S, Ma C, Mai M, et al. Translation and validation study of Chinese versions of the neck disability index and theneck pain and disability scale. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010; 35(16): 1575-1579.
[14] Matz PG, Pritchard PR, Hadley MN. Anterior cervical approach for the treatment of cervical myelopathy. Neurosurgery. 2007;60(1 Supp1 1):S64-S70.
[15] Lopez-Espina CG, Amirouche F, Havalad V. Multilevel cervical fusion and its effect on disc degeneration and osteophyte formation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006;31(9):972-978.
[16] Singh K, Phillips FM, Park DK, et al. Factors affecting reoperations after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion within and outside of a Federal Drug Administration investigational device exemption cervical disc replacement trial. Spine J. 2012;12(5):3372-3788.
[17] Barrey C, Campana S, Persohn S, et al. Cervical disc prosthesis versus arthrodesis using one-level, hybrid and two-level constructs: an in vitro investigation. Eur Spine J. 2012;21(3):432-442.
[18] Zigler JE, Delamarter R, Murrey D, et al. ProDisc-C and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion as surgical treatment for singlelevel cervical symptomatic degenerative disc disease：five-year results of a Food and Drug Administration study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013;38(3):203-209.
[19] Wu JC, Huang WC, Tu TH, et al. Differences between soft-disc herniation and spondylosis in cervical arthroplasty: CT-documented heterotopic ossification with minimum 2 years of follow-up. J Neurosurg Spine. 2012;16(2):163-171.
[20] Barbagallo GM, Assietti R, Corbino L, et al. Early results and review of the literature of a novel hybrid surgical technique combining cervical arthrodesis and disc arthroplasty for treating multilevel degenerative disc disease：opposite or complementary techniques? Eur Spine J. 2009;18 Suppl 1: 29-39.
[21] Salari B, MeAfee PC. CervicaI total disk replacement: complications and avoidance. Orthop Clin North Am. 2012; 43(1):97-107.
[22] de Beer N, Scheffer C. Reducing subsidence risk by using rapid manufactured patient specific intervertebral disc implants. Spine J. 2012;12(11):1060-1066.
[23] Bauman JA, Jaumard NV, Guarino BB,et al. Facet joint contact pressure is not significantly affected by ProDisc cervical disc arthroplasty in sagittal bending: a single-level cadaveric study. Spine J. 2012;12(10):949-959.
[24] Jaumard NV, Bauman JA, Guarino BB, et al. ProDisc cervical arthroplasty does not alter facet joint contact pressure during lateral bending or axial torsion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013; 38(2):E84-93.