Literature DB >> 19730207

Sagittal cervical alignment after cervical disc arthroplasty and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: results of a prospective, randomized, controlled trial.

Okechukwu A Anakwenze1, Joshua D Auerbach, Andrew H Milby, Baron S Lonner, Richard A Balderston.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: Radiographic results of a multicenter, prospective randomized study comparing 1-level cervical total disc replacement (TDR-C) with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF).
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect on device-level lordosis, cranial and caudal adjacent level lordosis, and overall cervical sagittal alignment (C2-C6) after TDR-C or ACDF. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Cervical total disc replacement (TDR-C) has emerged as a promising alternative to ACDF in a select group of patients. The maintenance and/or improvement of sagittal balance is essential in preserving functionality after reconstructive spinal procedures. Recent studies have documented changes in spinal alignment after TDR-C, however, no studies have compared these changes to those noted in matched group of patients that have undergone ACDF.
METHODS: Radiographic data were obtained from the randomized group of a multicenter, randomized, prospective, controlled study comparing TDR-C (ProDisc-C, Synthes Spine, West Chester, PA) with ACDF in the treatment of 1-level cervical disc disease. Complete radiographic data were available for 89 TDR-C patients (average age: 42.2 years) and 91 ACDF patients (average age: 41.7 years). Cervical lordosis at the device level, cranial and caudal adjacent levels, and total cervical lordosis (C2-C6) were independently measured before surgery and 2 years after surgery using custom image stabilization software (Quantitative Motion Analysis, Medical Metrics, Inc, Houston, TX).
RESULTS: C5-C6 was the most common operative level (TDR-C: 54%; ACDF: 55%). At 2 years after surgery, the TDR-C group experienced statistically significant changes in lordosis of 3.0 degrees (P < 0.001), 0.90 degrees (P = 0.006), and -1.9 degrees (P < 0.001) at the operative, cranial, and caudal adj-acent levels, respectively. ACDF experienced changes in lordosis of 4.2 degrees (P < 0.001), 1.0 degrees (P = 0.001), and -1.5 degrees (P = 0.001), respectively. The between-group differences were significant at the operative level (P = 0.03) and the caudal adjacent level (P = 0.05). Total cervical lordosis increased in both TDR-C and ACDF by 3.1 degrees and 3.8 degrees , respectively (P = 0.49).
CONCLUSION: In both TDR-C and ACDF, lordosis increased at the device-level, cranial adjacent level, and in total cervical lordosis, while lordosis decreased at the caudal adjacent level. Although ACDF facilitated a greater increase in device level lordosis (+1.25 degrees ) and less loss of lordosis at the caudal adjacent level compared with TDR-C (-0.39 degrees ), the clinical relevance of the small differences remain unknown.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19730207     DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181b03fe6

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


  28 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.  Dynamic cervical stabilization: a multicenter study.

Authors:  Guy Matgé; Peter Buddenberg; Marcus Eif; Holger Schenke; Joerg Herdmann
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-09-02       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 3.  Adjacent segment disease perspective and review of the literature.

Authors:  Fanor M Saavedra-Pozo; Renato A M Deusdara; Edward C Benzel
Journal:  Ochsner J       Date:  2014

4.  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

5.  Sagittal alignment and kinematics at instrumented and adjacent levels after total disc replacement in the cervical spine.

Authors:  Cédric Barrey; Sabina Champain; Sophie Campana; Aymen Ramadan; Gilles Perrin; Wafa Skalli
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2012-02-14       Impact factor: 3.134

6.  Cervical arthroplasty with Discover prosthesis: clinical outcomes and analysis of factors that may influence postoperative range of motion.

Authors:  Jun Li; Lei Liang; Xiao-fei Ye; Min Qi; Hua-jiang Chen; Wen Yuan
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-07-23       Impact factor: 3.134

7.  Anterior cervical disc arthroplasty (ACDA) versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF): a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Monish M Maharaj; Ralph J Mobbs; Jarred Hogan; Dong Fang Zhao; Prashanth J Rao; Kevin Phan
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2015-12

8.  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

9.  A meta-analysis comparing the results of cervical disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for the treatment of symptomatic cervical disc disease.

Authors:  Yu Gao; Ming Liu; Tao Li; Fuguo Huang; Tingting Tang; Zhou Xiang
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2013-03-20       Impact factor: 5.284

10.  Cervical Artificial Disc Replacement Versus Fusion for Cervical Degenerative Disc Disease: A Health Technology Assessment.

Authors: 
Journal:  Ont Health Technol Assess Ser       Date:  2019-02-19
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.