Literature DB >> 21221666

Assessment of adjacent-segment mobility after cervical disc replacement versus fusion: RCT with 1 year's results.

A Nabhan1, B Ishak, W I Steudel, S Ramadhan, O Steimer.   

Abstract

Disc prostheses have been designed to restore and maintain cervical segmental motion and reduce the accelerated degeneration of the adjacent level. There is no knowledge about the reaction of the neighboured asymptomatic segments after implantation of prostheses or fusion. The effects of these procedures to segmental movement of the uninvolved vertebrae have not been subjected to studies so far. The objective of this study was to compare the segmental motion following cervical disc replacement versus fusion and the correlation to the clinical outcome. Another aim was to compare the segmental motion of the asymptomatic segments above the treated ones and to compare both with Roentgen stereometric analysis (RSA) including the asymptomatic segments. 20 patients with one-level cervical radiculopathy scheduled for surgery were randomized to arthroplasty (10 patients, study group) or anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (10 patients, control group). Clinical results were evaluated using Visual Analogue Scale and Neck Disability Index. RSA was performed immediately postoperative, after 6 and 12 months. The adjacent segment showed a significantly higher segmental motion in all three-dimensional axes in comparison to the segment treated with prostheses (P < 0.05). In the fusion group the segmental motion of the adjacent segment was significantly higher in all three-dimensional axes (P < 0.05) at each examination time. When the adjacent level of both groups is compared, the fusion group could show a higher segmental motion in all three-dimensional axes, but without significant difference (P > 0.05) 1 year after surgery. Regarding the clinical results, there was no significant difference in pain relief between both groups (P > 0.05). In conclusion, the adjacent segment could show a higher segmental motion, when compared with the segment either treated with prostheses or fusion. There was no significant difference in segmental motion adjacent to prosthesis or fusion. Clinical results did also show no significant difference in pain relief between both groups.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21221666      PMCID: PMC3099167          DOI: 10.1007/s00586-010-1588-2

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


  45 in total

1.  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

Review 2.  Roentgen stereophotogrammetry. Review of orthopedic applications.

Authors:  J Kärrholm
Journal:  Acta Orthop Scand       Date:  1989-08

Review 3.  Roentgen stereophotogrammetric analysis.

Authors:  G Selvik
Journal:  Acta Radiol       Date:  1990-03       Impact factor: 1.990

4.  Mobility of the lower lumbar spine after posterolateral fusion determined by roentgen stereophotogrammetric analysis.

Authors:  R Johnsson; G Selvik; B Strömqvist; G Sundén
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1990-05       Impact factor: 3.468

5.  A roentgen stereophotogrammetric system. Construction, calibration and technical accuracy.

Authors:  G Selvik; P Alberius; A S Aronson
Journal:  Acta Radiol Diagn (Stockh)       Date:  1983

6.  Instability of the cervical spine after anterior interbody fusion. A study on its incidence and clinical significance in 21 patients.

Authors:  J R Döhler; M R Kahn; S P Hughes
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  1985

7.  Intermediate follow-up after treatment of degenerative disc disease with the Bryan Cervical Disc Prosthesis: single-level and bi-level.

Authors:  Jan Goffin; Frank Van Calenbergh; Johannes van Loon; Adrian Casey; Pierre Kehr; Klaus Liebig; Bengt Lind; Carlo Logroscino; Rosella Sgrambiglia; Vincent Pointillart
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2003-12-15       Impact factor: 3.468

8.  Roentgenographic findings following anterior cervical fusion.

Authors:  D R Gore; G M Gardner; S B Sepic; M P Murray
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  1986       Impact factor: 2.199

9.  Accelerated spondylotic changes adjacent to the fused segment following central cervical corpectomy: magnetic resonance imaging study evidence.

Authors:  Vaijayantee Kulkarni; Vedantam Rajshekhar; Lakshminarayan Raghuram
Journal:  J Neurosurg       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 5.115

10.  Anterior surgery for cervical disc disease. Part 1: Treatment of lateral cervical disc herniation in 253 cases.

Authors:  L D Lunsford; D J Bissonette; P J Jannetta; P E Sheptak; D S Zorub
Journal:  J Neurosurg       Date:  1980-07       Impact factor: 5.115

View more
  19 in total

Review 1.  The Michel Benoist and Robert Mulholland yearly European Spine Journal review: a survey of the "surgical and research" articles in the European Spine Journal, 2011.

Authors:  Robert C Mulholland
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-12-30       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

3.  Differential segmental motion contribution of single- and two-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion.

Authors:  Andy Chien; Dar-Ming Lai; Shwu-Fen Wang; Chih-Hsiu Cheng; Wei-Li Hsu; Jaw-Lin Wang
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-04-10       Impact factor: 3.134

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

Review 5.  Comparison of the short- and long-term treatment effect of cervical disk replacement and anterior cervical disk fusion: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Aikeremujiang Muheremu; Xiaohui Niu; Zhongyan Wu; Yilixiati Muhanmode; Wei Tian
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2014-05-05

Review 6.  Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion versus cervical arthroplasty for the management of cervical spondylosis: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Zhuo Ma; Xun Ma; Huilin Yang; Xiaoming Guan; Xiang Li
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2016-10-22       Impact factor: 3.134

7.  Changed cervical kinematics after fusion surgery.

Authors:  E Cattrysse; M Moens; E Schaillée; J D'Haens; P Van Roy
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-12-16       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

9.  Clinical and radiological analysis of Bryan cervical disc arthroplasty: eight-year follow-up results compared with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion.

Authors:  Tao Lei; Yaming Liu; Hui Wang; Jiaxin Xu; Qinghua Ma; Linfeng Wang; Yong Shen
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2016-01-07       Impact factor: 3.075

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.