Literature DB >> 17106665

Disc replacement using Pro-Disc C versus fusion: a prospective randomised and controlled radiographic and clinical study.

A Nabhan1, F Ahlhelm, T Pitzen, W I Steudel, J Jung, K Shariat, O Steimer, F Bachelier, D Pape.   

Abstract

Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) may be considered to be the gold standard for treatment of symptomatic degenerative disc disease within the cervical spine. However, fusion of the segment may result in progressive degeneration of the adjacent segments. Therefore, dynamic stabilization procedures have been introduced. Among these, artificial disc replacement by disc prosthesis seems to be promising. However, to be so, segmental motion must be preserved. This, again, is very difficult to judge and has not yet been proven. The aim of the current study was to first analyse the segmental motion following artificial disc replacement using a disc prosthesis. A second aim was to compare both segmental motion as well as clinical result to the current gold standard (ACDF). This is a prospective controlled study. Twenty-five patients with cervical disc herniation were enrolled and assigned to either study group (receiving a disc prosthesis) or control group (receiving ACDF, using a cage with bone graft and an anterior plate.) Radiostereometric analysis was used to quantify intervertebral motion immediately as well as 3, 6, 12 and 24 weeks postoperatively. Further, clinical results were judged using visual analogue scale and neuro-examination. Cervical spine segmental motion decreased over time in the presence of disc prosthesis or ACDF. However, the loss of segmental motion is significantly higher in the ACDF group, when looked at 3, 6, 12 and 24 weeks after surgery. We observed significant pain reduction in neck and arm postoperatively, without significant difference between both groups (P > 0.05). Cervical spine disc prosthesis preserves cervical spine segmental motion within the first 6 months after surgery. The clinical results are the same when compared to the early results following ACDF.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17106665      PMCID: PMC2200708          DOI: 10.1007/s00586-006-0226-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Spine J        ISSN: 0940-6719            Impact factor:   3.134


  43 in total

1.  Strain on intervertebral discs after anterior cervical decompression and fusion.

Authors:  S Matsunaga; S Kabayama; T Yamamoto; K Yone; T Sakou; K Nakanishi
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1999-04-01       Impact factor: 3.468

Review 2.  Roentgen stereophotogrammetry. Review of orthopedic applications.

Authors:  J Kärrholm
Journal:  Acta Orthop Scand       Date:  1989-08

3.  Anterior discectomy and fusion for painful cervical disc disease. A report of 50 patients with an average follow-up of 21 years.

Authors:  D R Gore; S B Sepic
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1998-10-01       Impact factor: 3.468

Review 4.  Roentgen stereophotogrammetric analysis.

Authors:  G Selvik
Journal:  Acta Radiol       Date:  1990-03       Impact factor: 1.990

5.  A comparison of pain measurement characteristics of mechanical visual analogue and simple numerical rating scales.

Authors:  D D Price; F M Bush; S Long; S W Harkins
Journal:  Pain       Date:  1994-02       Impact factor: 6.961

6.  The new Frenchay artificial cervical joint: results from a two-year pilot study.

Authors:  Crispin C Wigfield; Steven S Gill; Richard J Nelson; Newton H Metcalf; James T Robertson
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2002-11-15       Impact factor: 3.468

7.  Fusion around cervical disc prosthesis: case report.

Authors:  Ronald H M A Bartels; Roland Donk
Journal:  Neurosurgery       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 4.654

8.  Changes in segmental intervertebral motion adjacent to cervical arthrodesis: a prospective study.

Authors:  Charles A Reitman; John A Hipp; Lyndon Nguyen; Stephen I Esses
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2004-06-01       Impact factor: 3.468

9.  The Bryan Cervical Disc: wear properties and early clinical results.

Authors:  Paul A Anderson; Rick C Sasso; Jeffrey P Rouleau; Cathy S Carlson; Jan Goffin
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2004 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 4.166

Review 10.  Adjacent segment degeneration and adjacent segment disease: the consequences of spinal fusion?

Authors:  Alan S Hilibrand; Matthew Robbins
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2004 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 4.166

View more
  37 in total

Review 1.  Cervical and lumbar spinal arthroplasty: clinical review.

Authors:  T D Uschold; D Fusco; R Germain; L M Tumialan; S W Chang
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2011-10-27       Impact factor: 3.825

2.  The use of self-mating PEEK as an alternative bearing material for cervical disc arthroplasty: a comparison of different simulator inputs and tribological environments.

Authors:  Tim Brown; Qi-Bin Bao
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2012-03-14       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 3.  Cervical spine alignment in disc arthroplasty: should we change our perspective?

Authors:  Alberto Di Martino; Rocco Papalia; Erika Albo; Leonardo Cortesi; Luca Denaro; Vincenzo Denaro
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-10-06       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  Comparison of radiographic changes after ACDF versus Bryan disc arthroplasty in single and bi-level cases.

Authors:  Seok Woo Kim; Marc Anthony Limson; Soo-Bum Kim; Jose Joefrey F Arbatin; Kee-Young Chang; Moon-Soo Park; Jae-hyuk Shin; Yeong-Su Ju
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-01-06       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 5.  Motion analysis of single-level cervical total disc arthroplasty: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Jian Chen; Shun-wu Fan; Xin-wei Wang; Wen Yuan
Journal:  Orthop Surg       Date:  2012-05       Impact factor: 2.071

6.  Assessment of adjacent-segment mobility after cervical disc replacement versus fusion: RCT with 1 year's results.

Authors:  A Nabhan; B Ishak; W I Steudel; S Ramadhan; O Steimer
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-01-08       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 7.  WITHDRAWN: Arthroplasty versus fusion in single-level cervical degenerative disc disease.

Authors:  Toon F M Boselie; Paul C Willems; Henk van Mameren; Rob de Bie; Edward C Benzel; Henk van Santbrink
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2015-05-21

8.  Experimental evaluation of precision and accuracy of RSA in the lumbar spine.

Authors:  Marie Christina Keller; Christof Hurschler; Michael Schwarze
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2020-12-04       Impact factor: 3.134

9.  Clinical and radiological results of total disc replacement in the cervical spine with preoperative reducible kyphosis.

Authors:  Yu Chen; Zhimin He; Haisong Yang; Xinwei Wang; Deyu Chen
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2012-12-28       Impact factor: 3.075

10.  Anterior cervical discectomy with fusion in patients with cervical disc degeneration: a prospective outcome study of 258 patients (181 fused with autologous bone graft and 77 fused with a PEEK cage).

Authors:  Bjarne Lied; Paal Andre Roenning; Jarle Sundseth; Eirik Helseth
Journal:  BMC Surg       Date:  2010-03-21       Impact factor: 2.102

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.