Literature DB >> 19240664

Cervical disc replacement in patients with and without previous adjacent level fusion surgery: a prospective study.

Frank M Phillips1, Todd R Allen, John J Regan, Todd J Albert, Andrew Cappuccino, John G Devine, Jeanette E Ahrens, John A Hipp, Paul C McAfee.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: Prospective 6-center study. OBJECTIVE.: To evaluate outcomes of cervical disc replacement performed adjacent to a prior cervical fusion. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The use of disc replacement adjacent to a prior anterior cervical decompression and fusion (ACDF) is an attractive reconstructive option, obviating the need for a multilevel fusion. This study reports outcomes from patients with and without previous ACDF receiving the porous coated motion (PCM) artificial cervical disc in a United States Federal Drug Administration Investigational Device Exemption trials.
METHODS: Patients between ages of 18 and 65 with single-level cervical radiculopathy and/or myelopathy, unresponsive to at least 6 weeks of nonsurgical therapy, or experiencing progressive neurologic symptoms were enrolled. Clinical outcomes are compared for patients receiving a PCM disc at a level adjacent to a prior ACDF ("adjacent") and those without having previously had fusion ("primary").
RESULTS: 126 PCM patients were primary (mean age: 44.4 years.) and 26 patients had previous "adjacent level" fusion surgery (mean age: 46.4 years). Surgery time was similar in both groups (96 minutes and 98 minutes, respectively; P = 0.761), and mean blood loss was 76 mL and 66 mL in the 2 groups, respectively (P = 0.491). Clinical outcomes using Neck Disability Index and Visual Analog Scores neck and arm scores showed significant improvement after surgery and were similar between groups at all time points. Revision surgery occurred in 2 of 126 primary patients, and in 2 of 26 patients in the adjacent-to-fusion group.
CONCLUSION: Although the level adjacent to a prior cervical fusion is subject to increased biomechanical forces, potentially leading to a higher risk of failure, the PCM disc was well tolerated in the short term. The early clinical results of disc replacement adjacent to a prior fusion are good and comparable to the outcomes after primary disc replacement surgery. However, in view of the small study population and short-term follow-up, continued study is mandatory.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19240664     DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31819b061c

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


  18 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

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

3.  [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

4.  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 5.  Artificial total disc replacement versus fusion for the cervical spine: a systematic review.

Authors:  Ingrid Zechmeister; Roman Winkler; Philipp Mad
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2010-10-10       Impact factor: 3.134

6.  In vivo analysis of cervical kinematics after implantation of a minimally constrained cervical artificial disc replacement.

Authors:  Heiko Koller; Oliver Meier; Juliane Zenner; Michael Mayer; Wolfgang Hitzl
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2012-11-24       Impact factor: 3.134

7.  Study on biomechanical analysis of two-level cervical Mobi-C and arthrodesis.

Authors:  Chao Sun; Yang Li; Rongjie Feng; Shijie Han
Journal:  Am J Transl Res       Date:  2021-11-15       Impact factor: 4.060

8.  ISASS Policy Statement - Cervical Artificial Disc.

Authors:  Domagoj Coric
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2014-12-01

9.  Activ C cervical disc replacement for myelopathy.

Authors:  L McGonagle; S Cadman; S D Chitgopkar; L Canavan; M O'Malley; I M Shackleford
Journal:  J Craniovertebr Junction Spine       Date:  2011-07

10.  Comparisons of three anterior cervical surgeries in treating cervical spondylotic myelopathy.

Authors:  RuoFu Zhu; HuiLin Yang; ZhiDong Wang; GenLin Wang; MinJie Shen; Quan Yuan
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2014-07-10       Impact factor: 2.362

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.