Literature DB >> 19127374

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

Seok Woo Kim1, Marc Anthony Limson, Soo-Bum Kim, Jose Joefrey F Arbatin, Kee-Young Chang, Moon-Soo Park, Jae-hyuk Shin, Yeong-Su Ju.   

Abstract

The object of this study is to compare radiographic outcomes of anterior cervical decompression and fusion (ACDF) versus cervical disc replacement using the Bryan Cervical Disc Prosthesis (Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Memphis, TN) in terms of range of motion (ROM), Functional spinal unit (FSU), overall sagittal alignment (C2-C7), anterior intervertebral height (AIH), posterior intervertebral height (PIH) and radiographic changes at the implanted and adjacent levels. The study consisted of 105 patients. A total of 63 Bryan disc were placed in 51 patients. A single level procedure was performed in 39 patients and a two-level procedure in the other 12. Fifty-four patients underwent ACDF, 26 single level cases and 28 double level cases. The Bryan group had a mean follow-up 19 months (12-38). Mean follow-up for the ACDF group was 20 months (12-40 months). All patients were evaluated using static and dynamic cervical spine radiographs as well as MR imaging. All patients underwent anterior cervical discectomy followed by autogenous bone graft with plate (or implantation of a cage) or the Bryan artificial disc prosthesis. Clinical evaluation included the visual analogue scale (VAS), and neck disability index (NDI). Radiographic evaluation included static and dynamic flexion-extension radiographs using the computer software (Infinitt PiviewSTAR 5051) program. ROM, disc space angle, intervertebral height were measured at the operative site and adjacent levels. FSU and overall sagittal alignment (C2-C7) were also measured pre-operatively, postoperatively and at final follow-up. Radiological change was analyzed using chi(2) test (95% confidence interval). Other data were analyzed using the mixed model (SAS enterprises guide 4.1 versions). There was clinical improvement within each group in terms of VAS and NDI scores from pre-op to final follow-up but not significantly between the two groups for both single (VAS p=0.8371, NDI p=0.2872) and double (VAS p=0.2938, NDI p=0.6753) level surgeries. Overall, ROM and intervertebral height was relatively well maintained during the follow-up in the Bryan group compared to ACDF. Regardless of the number of levels operated on, significant differences were noted for overall ROM of the cervical spine (p<0.0001) and all other levels except at the upper adjacent level for single level surgeries (p=0.2872). Statistically significant (p<0.0001 and p=0.0172) differences in the trend of intervertebral height measurements between the two groups were noted at all levels except for the AIH of single level surgeries at the upper (p=0.1264) and lower (p=0.7598) adjacent levels as well as PIH for double level surgeries at the upper (p=0.8363) adjacent level. Radiological change was 3.5 times more observed for the ACDF group. Clinical status of both groups, regardless of the number of levels, showed improvement. Although clinical outcomes between the two groups were not significantly different at final follow-up, radiographic parameters, namely ROM and intervertebral heights at the operated site, some adjacent levels as well as FSU and overall sagittal alignment of the cervical spine were relatively well maintained in Bryan group compared to ACDF group. We surmise that to a certain degree, the maintenance of these parameters could contribute to reduce development of adjacent level change. Noteworthy is that radiographic change was 3.5 times more observed for ACDF surgeries. A longer period of evaluation is needed, to see if all these radiographic changes will translate to symptomatic adjacent level disease.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19127374      PMCID: PMC2899339          DOI: 10.1007/s00586-008-0854-z

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


  31 in total

1.  Increased fusion rates with cervical plating for two-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion.

Authors:  J C Wang; P W McDonough; K K Endow; R B Delamarter
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2000-01       Impact factor: 3.468

2.  Biomechanical study on the effect of cervical spine fusion on adjacent-level intradiscal pressure and segmental motion.

Authors:  Jason C Eck; S Craig Humphreys; Tae-Hong Lim; Soon Tack Jeong; Jesse G Kim; Scott D Hodges; Howard S An
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2002-11-15       Impact factor: 3.468

3.  Long-term follow-up after interbody fusion of the cervical spine.

Authors:  Jan Goffin; Eric Geusens; Nicolaas Vantomme; Els Quintens; Yannic Waerzeggers; Bart Depreitere; Frank Van Calenbergh; Johan van Loon
Journal:  J Spinal Disord Tech       Date:  2004-04

4.  An AOA critical issue. Disc replacements: this time will we really cure low-back and neck pain?

Authors:  Scott D Boden; Richard A Balderston; John G Heller; Edward N Hanley; Jack E Zigler
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 5.284

5.  Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion.

Authors:  D H Clements; P F O'Leary
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1990-10       Impact factor: 3.468

6.  Three-dimensional analysis of neck motion. A clinical method.

Authors:  M Alund; S E Larsson
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1990-02       Impact factor: 3.468

7.  Anterior cervical plating enhances arthrodesis after discectomy and fusion with cortical allograft.

Authors:  Michael G Kaiser; Regis W Haid; Brian R Subach; Bryan Barnes; Gerald E Rodts
Journal:  Neurosurgery       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 4.654

8.  Update on the evaluation of instability of the lower cervical spine.

Authors:  A A White; M M Panjabi
Journal:  Instr Course Lect       Date:  1987

9.  Late results of cervical discectomy and interbody fusion: some factors influencing the results.

Authors:  J L Williams; M B Allen; J W Harkess
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1968-03       Impact factor: 5.284

Review 10.  Adjacent segment disease after fusion for cervical spondylosis; myth or reality?

Authors:  Moonsang Seo; D Choi
Journal:  Br J Neurosurg       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 1.596

View more
  62 in total

1.  Three-dimensional kinematic analysis of the cervical spine after anterior cervical decompression and fusion at an adjacent level: a preliminary report.

Authors:  Sadayoshi Watanabe; Nozomu Inoue; Tomonori Yamaguchi; Yoshitaka Hirano; Alejandro A Espinoza Orías; Shintaro Nishida; Yuichi Hirose; Junichi Mizuno
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-11-29       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 2.  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

Review 3.  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

Review 4.  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

5.  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

6.  Effect of cervical artificial disc replacement on adjacent inferior intervertebral space stress.

Authors:  L K Chen; K H Li
Journal:  West Indian Med J       Date:  2014-03-17       Impact factor: 0.171

7.  Three- and four-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with a PEEK cage and plate construct.

Authors:  Kyung-Jin Song; Sun-Jung Yoon; Kwang-Bok Lee
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2012-07-28       Impact factor: 3.134

8.  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

9.  A comparison of outcomes of cervical disc arthroplasty and fusion in everyday clinical practice: surgical and methodological aspects.

Authors:  Dieter Grob; Francois Porchet; Frank S Kleinstück; Friederike Lattig; Dezsoe Jeszenszky; Andrea Luca; Urs Mutter; Anne F Mannion
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-10-31       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.