A Nabhan1, W I Steudel, Ah Nabhan, D Pape, B Ishak. 1. Department of Neurosurgery, Neurosurgical Department, University of Saarland, Homburg, Germany. dr_a_nabhan@hotmail.com
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, randomized and controlled clinical and radiological study. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the segmental kinematics and clinical outcome of disc replacement with ProDisc C versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for monosegmental disease 3 years after surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), including plate fixation, is an accepted technique for treatment of symptomatic degenerative disc disease (DDD). However, various studies could show that fusion of a relative mobile spinal segment leads to heightens of stresses on the discs below and above fusion, which is manifested as adjacent level degeneration. Intervertebral disc replacement has been attempted to restore intervertebral disc height and to maintain segmental motion, which may be thought to avoid the accelerated degeneration to the adjacent level. In earlier studies, we could show that ProDisc C could maintain segmental motion for 1 year after surgery. METHODS:49 patients with cervical disc herniation underwentarthroplasty of a single level using ProDisc C disc prosthesis or received fusion using a cage and anterior titanium plate fixation. Clinical outcome was assessed using the visual analogue scale (VAS) and the neck disability index (NDI). Radiostereometry was performed immediately postoperative and then after 1, 2, and 3 years after surgery to quantify the segmental kinematics. RESULTS: The range of motion of the treated segment with prosthesis remained unchanged 3 years after surgery in comparison to the 1-year result. The prosthesis shows a significant segmental motion in contrast to the fusion group at each RSA examination time (p < 0.05). After both procedures, a significant pain reduction in neck and arm was observed, without significant differences between both groups. During the course of the 3 years follow-up, no patients of the prosthesis group required further surgical intervention.
RCT Entities:
STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, randomized and controlled clinical and radiological study. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the segmental kinematics and clinical outcome of disc replacement with ProDisc C versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for monosegmental disease 3 years after surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), including plate fixation, is an accepted technique for treatment of symptomatic degenerative disc disease (DDD). However, various studies could show that fusion of a relative mobile spinal segment leads to heightens of stresses on the discs below and above fusion, which is manifested as adjacent level degeneration. Intervertebral disc replacement has been attempted to restore intervertebral disc height and to maintain segmental motion, which may be thought to avoid the accelerated degeneration to the adjacent level. In earlier studies, we could show that ProDisc C could maintain segmental motion for 1 year after surgery. METHODS: 49 patients with cervical disc herniation underwent arthroplasty of a single level using ProDisc C disc prosthesis or received fusion using a cage and anterior titanium plate fixation. Clinical outcome was assessed using the visual analogue scale (VAS) and the neck disability index (NDI). Radiostereometry was performed immediately postoperative and then after 1, 2, and 3 years after surgery to quantify the segmental kinematics. RESULTS: The range of motion of the treated segment with prosthesis remained unchanged 3 years after surgery in comparison to the 1-year result. The prosthesis shows a significant segmental motion in contrast to the fusion group at each RSA examination time (p < 0.05). After both procedures, a significant pain reduction in neck and arm was observed, without significant differences between both groups. During the course of the 3 years follow-up, no patients of the prosthesis group required further surgical intervention.
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
Authors: Caroline M W Goedmakers; Tessa Janssen; Xiaoyu Yang; Mark P Arts; Ronald H M A Bartels; Carmen L A Vleggeert-Lankamp Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2019-10-22 Impact factor: 3.134