Literature DB >> 20543765

Index and adjacent level kinematics after cervical disc replacement and anterior fusion: in vivo quantitative radiographic analysis.

Daniel K Park1, Eric L Lin, Frank M Phillips.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: Prospective, randomized trial.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the in vivo kinematics of the cervical spine after cervical fusion and arthroplasty. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Compared with spinal fusion, disc replacement may impede the development of adjacent segment disease. To achieve this goal, any arthroplasty device should achieve desired spinal alignment while maintaining physiologic spinal motion at both the operated and surrounding motion segments.
METHODS: As part of a multicenter, prospective, randomized Food and Drug Administration IDE clinical evaluation of the porous coated motion artificial cervical disc, patients underwent either a single-level total disc replacement (TDR; 272 patients) or anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF; 182 patients) for treatment of cervical radiculopathy or myelopathy. Neutral, flexion, and extension radiographs of the cervical spine obtained before surgery, and at 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery were assessed. Quantitative assessments and comparisons of motion patterns were produced using validated computer-assisted methods. Kinematic parameters, including segmental rotation, translation, center of rotation (COR), disc height, and disc angle were calculated.
RESULTS: Cervical TDR preserved angular motion at the operated level, although the range was reduced from 8.0° before surgery to 6.2° at 12 months after surgery (P < 0.001). Significantly after TDR, adjacent-level angular motion was unchanged. In patients treated with fusion, angular motion at the superior adjacent level increased from 9.6° before surgery to 11.0° (P = 0.003) at 12 months, with a trend toward increased postoperative translation (P = 0.07). For the TDR group, the horizontal COR averaged 0.8 mm posterior to the disc center before surgery and 0.2 mm anterior to the center at 12 months after TDR (P < 0.001), and the vertical COR averaged 2.5 mm below the endplate before surgery and 4.0 mm below at 12 months (P = 0.001). COR at the adjacent levels was unaltered by fusion or TDR. Lordotic alignment and disc height at the index level increased after intervention in both groups.
CONCLUSION: TDR with the porous coated motion implant is able to restore and maintain lordotic alignment and disc height and maintain angular motion while allowing for similar translation to that seen before surgery. In contrast, after ACDF, the superior adjacent level developed increased angular motion compared with preoperative range of motion. This study provides in vivo data regarding the functioning of TDR and ACDF and their impact on adjacent-level kinematics.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 20543765     DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181df10fc

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


  36 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.  Ranges of Cervical Intervertebral Disc Deformation During an In Vivo Dynamic Flexion-Extension of the Neck.

Authors:  Yan Yu; Haiqing Mao; Jing-Sheng Li; Tsung-Yuan Tsai; Liming Cheng; Kirkham B Wood; Guoan Li; Thomas D Cha
Journal:  J Biomech Eng       Date:  2017-06-01       Impact factor: 2.097

6.  Finite element model predicts the biomechanical performance of cervical disc replacement and fusion hybrid surgery with various geometry of ball-and-socket artificial disc.

Authors:  Yang Li; Guy R Fogel; Zhenhua Liao; Weiqiang Liu
Journal:  Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg       Date:  2017-06-08       Impact factor: 2.924

7.  Remodeling of adjacent spinal alignments following cervical arthroplasty and anterior discectomy and fusion.

Authors:  Sung Bae Park; Tae-Ahn Jahng; Chun Kee Chung
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-08-30       Impact factor: 3.134

8.  Is cervical disc arthroplasty superior to fusion for treatment of symptomatic cervical disc disease? A meta-analysis.

Authors:  Si Yin; Xiao Yu; Shuangli Zhou; Zhanhai Yin; Yusheng Qiu
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2013-02-07       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 9.  Comparison of artificial cervical arthroplasty versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for one-level cervical degenerative disc disease: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Jiaquan Luo; Sheng Huang; Min Gong; Xuejun Dai; Manman Gao; Ting Yu; Zhiyu Zhou; Xuenong Zou
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2014-07-18

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.