Literature DB >> 21336970

Comparison between single- and multi-level patients: clinical and radiological outcomes 2 years after cervical disc replacement.

J Huppert1, J Beaurain, J P Steib, P Bernard, T Dufour, I Hovorka, J Stecken, P Dam-Hieu, J M Fuentes, J M Vital, T Vila, L Aubourg.   

Abstract

In cervical multi-level degenerative pathology, considering the morbidity of the extensive fusion techniques, some authors advocate for the multilevel disc replacement. This study compared the safety and efficacy of disc replacement with an unconstrained prosthesis in multi- versus single-level patients. A total of 231 patients with cervical degenerative disc disease (DDD) who were treated with cervical disc replacement and completed their 24 months follow-up were analyzed prospectively: 175 were treated at one level, 56 at 2 levels or more. Comparison between both groups was based on usual clinical and radiological outcomes [Neck Disability Index (NDI), Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Range of Motion, satisfaction]. Safety assessments, including complication and subsequent surgeries, were also documented and compared. Mean NDI and VAS scores for neck and arm pain were improved in both groups similarly. Improvement of mobility at treated segments was also similar. Nevertheless, in the multi-level group, analgesic use was significantly higher and occurrence of Heterotopic Ossification significantly lower than in the single-level group. Subject satisfaction was nearly equal, as 94.2% of single-level group patients would undergo the surgery again versus 94.5% in the multi-level group. The overall success rate did not differ significantly. Multi-level DDD is a challenging indication in the cervical spine. This study showed no major significant clinical difference between the two groups. We need further studies to know more about the impact of multi-level arthroplasty, especially on the adjacent segments, but these results demonstrate initial safety and effectiveness in this patient sample.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21336970      PMCID: PMC3175911          DOI: 10.1007/s00586-011-1722-9

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


  21 in total

Review 1.  Adjacent level degeneration after anterior cervical fusion: a clinical review.

Authors:  Juan C Bartolomei; Nicholas Theodore; Volker K H Sonntag
Journal:  Neurosurg Clin N Am       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 2.509

2.  Disc replacement using Pro-Disc C versus fusion: a prospective randomised and controlled radiographic and clinical study.

Authors:  A Nabhan; F Ahlhelm; T Pitzen; W I Steudel; J Jung; K Shariat; O Steimer; F Bachelier; D Pape
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2006-11-14       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  Fusion versus Bryan Cervical Disc in two-level cervical disc disease: a prospective, randomised study.

Authors:  Lei Cheng; Lin Nie; Li Zhang; Yong Hou
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2008-10-28       Impact factor: 3.075

4.  Effect of two-level total disc replacement on cervical spine kinematics.

Authors:  Frank M Phillips; Michael N Tzermiadianos; Leonard I Voronov; Robert M Havey; Gerard Carandang; Andrew Dooris; Avinash G Patwardhan
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2009-10-15       Impact factor: 3.468

5.  Clinical and radiographic analysis of cervical disc arthroplasty compared with allograft fusion: a randomized controlled clinical trial.

Authors:  Praveen V Mummaneni; J Kenneth Burkus; Regis W Haid; Vincent C Traynelis; Thomas A Zdeblick
Journal:  J Neurosurg Spine       Date:  2007-03

6.  A clinical analysis of 4- and 6-year follow-up results after cervical disc replacement surgery using the Bryan Cervical Disc Prosthesis.

Authors:  Jan Goffin; Johan van Loon; Frank Van Calenbergh; Bailey Lipscomb
Journal:  J Neurosurg Spine       Date:  2010-03

Review 7.  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

8.  Comparison of BRYAN cervical disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical decompression and fusion: clinical and radiographic results of a randomized, controlled, clinical trial.

Authors:  John G Heller; Rick C Sasso; Stephen M Papadopoulos; Paul A Anderson; Richard G Fessler; Robert J Hacker; Domagoj Coric; Joseph C Cauthen; Daniel K Riew
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2009-01-15       Impact factor: 3.468

9.  Clinical report of cervical arthroplasty in management of spondylotic myelopathy in Chinese.

Authors:  Yan Wang; Xuesong Zhang; Songhua Xiao; Ning Lu; Zheng Wang; Mi Zhou
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2006-11-04       Impact factor: 2.359

10.  Update on cervical disc arthroplasty: where are we and where are we going?

Authors:  Jorge J Jaramillo-de la Torre; Jonathan N Grauer; James J Yue
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2008-06
View more
  26 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

Review 2.  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

3.  Clinical and radiological evaluation of cervical disc arthroplasty with 5-year follow-up: a prospective study of 384 patients.

Authors:  T Dufour; J Beaurain; J Huppert; P Dam-Hieu; P Bernard; J P Steib
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2019-07-30       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  Clinical, radiological, histological and retrieval findings of Activ-L and Mobidisc total disc replacements: a study of two patients.

Authors:  Shennah Austen; Ilona M Punt; Jack P M Cleutjens; Paul C Willems; Steven M Kurtz; Daniel W MacDonald; Lodewijk W van Rhijn; André van Ooij
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2012-01-15       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  Disc prosthesis replacement and interbody fusion in the treatment of degenerative cervical disc disease: comparative analysis of 176 consecutive cases.

Authors:  Barbara Cappelletto; Fabrizia Giorgiutti; Claudio Veltri; Massimo A Trevigne; Paolo Facchin; Paolo Del Fabro
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-09-18       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 6.  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

Review 7.  Treating multi-level cervical disc disease with hybrid surgery compared to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Victor M Lu; Lucy Zhang; Daniel B Scherman; Prashanth J Rao; Ralph J Mobbs; Kevin Phan
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2016-09-27       Impact factor: 3.134

8.  Is hybrid surgery of the cervical spine a good balance between fusion and arthroplasty? Pilot results from a single surgeon series.

Authors:  Hwee Weng Dennis Hey; Choon Chiet Hong; Ai Sha Long; Hwan Tak Hee
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2012-08-25       Impact factor: 3.134

9.  Independent predictors of complication following surgery for spinal metastasis.

Authors:  Darryl Lau; Matthew R Leach; Khoi D Than; John Ziewacz; Frank La Marca; Paul Park
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-02-08       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 10.  Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) versus cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) for two contiguous levels cervical disc degenerative disease: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Shihua Zou; Junyi Gao; Bin Xu; Xiangdong Lu; Yongbin Han; Hui Meng
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2016-06-17       Impact factor: 3.134

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.