Literature DB >> 17515823

Superiority of multilevel cervical arthroplasty outcomes versus single-level outcomes: 229 consecutive PCM prostheses.

Luiz Pimenta1, Paul C McAfee, Andy Cappuccino, Bryan W Cunningham, Roberto Diaz, Etevaldo Coutinho.   

Abstract

STUDY DESIGN/
SETTING: Class 2 level of evidence: This is a prospective, consecutive series of 229 prosthetic implantations that were concurrently enrolled between single-level versus multilevel cervical arthroplasty comprising an FDA Pilot Study.
OBJECTIVE: This study investigated multilevel cervical disc replacement in relation to single-level cervical arthroplasty to find if the same reduction in clinical success would occur with this alternative treatment. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Usually, the clinical outcomes of instrumented cervical fusions deteriorate as the number of vertebral levels of involvement increases.
METHODS: A total of 229 patients presented with cervical herniated nucleus pulposus, cervical spondylosis, and/or adjacent segment disease with cervical radiculopathy or myelopathy. Following anterior cervical neurologic decompression seventy-one patients required porous coated motion (PCM) cervical arthroplasties from C3-C4 to C7-T1 (Group S, single level). Sixty-nine patients underwent 158 multilevel PCM cervical arthroplasties (Group M, multilevel) during the same time interval, for the same indications, performed by the same surgeons under the same clinical protocol: double level, 53 cases; three levels, 12 cases: and 4 levels, 4 cases.
RESULTS: The self-assessment outcomes instruments showed significantly more improvement for the multilevel cases. The mean improvement in the NDI for the single cases was 37.6% versus the multilevel cases mean improvement in NDI was 52.6% (P = 0.021). The difference between the two was statistically significant. The mean improvement in the VAS showed the same association: single-level mean improvement 58.4% versus the multilevel cases mean VAS improvement was 65.9%. The Odom's were also more improved for the multilevel versus the single-level group: 93.9% versus 90.5% in the excellent, good, and fair categories. The reoperation rates and serious adverse events were similar between the single-level (S = 3) to the multilevel arthroplasty (M = 2) groups. Kaplan-Meier implant survivorship analysis at 3 years for the cohort of 229 prostheses was 94.5% (confidence interval, 1.00-0.820).
CONCLUSIONS: This prospective study of cervical arthroplasty is the first report to date showing significantly improved clinical outcomes for multilevel cervical arthroplasty compared with single-level cervical disc replacement using an FDA validated outcome instrument.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17515823     DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e318059af12

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)        ISSN: 0362-2436            Impact factor:   3.468


  35 in total

Review 1.  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

2.  [The relevance of the sagittal profile in cervical artificial discs].

Authors:  C Carstens; M Carstens; F Copf
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2011-08       Impact factor: 1.087

3.  Cervical disc prosthesis versus arthrodesis using one-level, hybrid and two-level constructs: an in vitro investigation.

Authors:  Cédric Barrey; Sophie Campana; Sylvain Persohn; Gilles Perrin; Wafa Skalli
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-08-11       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 4.  Parameters that effect spine biomechanics following cervical disc replacement.

Authors:  Vijay K Goel; Ahmad Faizan; Vivek Palepu; Sanghita Bhattacharya
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-05-20       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  Clinical and radiological features of hybrid surgery in multilevel cervical degenerative disc disease.

Authors:  Giovanni Grasso
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-10-13       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 6.  Spinal motion preservation surgery: indications and applications.

Authors:  Ioannis D Gelalis; Dimitrios V Papadopoulos; Dionysios K Giannoulis; Andreas G Tsantes; Anastasios V Korompilias
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2017-10-06

7.  [Cervical arthroplasty using the Bryan Cervical Disc System].

Authors:  Friedrich Weber; Michael Detzner
Journal:  Oper Orthop Traumatol       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 1.154

8.  Hybrid surgery of multilevel cervical degenerative disc disease : review of literature and clinical results.

Authors:  Sang-Bok Lee; Kyoung-Suok Cho; Jong-Youn Kim; Do-Sung Yoo; Tae-Gyu Lee; Pil-Woo Huh
Journal:  J Korean Neurosurg Soc       Date:  2012-11-30

Review 9.  Multi-level cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) versus single-level CDA for the treatment of cervical disc diseases: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Hua Zhao; Lei Cheng; Yong Hou; Yi Liu; Ben Liu; Jyoti Joshi Mundra; Lin Nie
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2014-06-25       Impact factor: 3.134

10.  Is hybrid surgery of the cervical spine a good balance between fusion and arthroplasty? Pilot results from a single surgeon series.

Authors:  Hwee Weng Dennis Hey; Choon Chiet Hong; Ai Sha Long; Hwan Tak Hee
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2012-08-25       Impact factor: 3.134

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.