Literature DB >> 21508886

Segmental contribution toward total cervical range of motion: a comparison of cervical disc arthroplasty and fusion.

Joshua D Auerbach1, Okechukwu A Anakwenze, Andrew H Milby, Baron S Lonner, Richard A Balderston.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: Prospective radiographic evaluation of patients that underwent cervical total disc replacement (TDR-C) or anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for one-level cervical disc disease.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the following: (1) total cervical range of motion (ROM) from C2 to C7, and (2) the relative contribution to total cervical ROM from the operative level and each adjacent level after one-level TDR-C or ACDF. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The development of symptomatic adjacent segment disease after ACDF has served as the impetus for the development of motion-preserving alternatives, most notably cervical disc arthroplasty. While previous reports have evaluated device-level and total cervical motion, no study has comprehensively quantified the relative contribution made from each of the adjacent levels to total cervical ROM in TDR-C and ACDF.
METHODS: Radiographic review of 187 randomized patients from a multicenter, prospective, randomized trial comparing TDR-C with ACDF for one-level cervical disc disease. There were 93 TDR-C and 94 ACDF patients included. ROM measurements were performed independently using quantitative motion analysis, a custom digitized image stabilization software program, to evaluate total cervical ROM and relative contribution to total ROM from each level from C2 to C7 preoperatively and at 24 months.
RESULTS: The most common operative level was C5/C6 (57%) followed by C6/C7 (34%). At 2 years, the TDR-C group underwent a statistically greater improvement in total cervical ROM (+5.9°) compared with ACDF (-0.8°, P = 0.001). In TDR-C, the relative contributions to total cervical ROM from the operative level and each caudal and cranial adjacent level were statistically equivalent from baseline to 24 months. In contrast, ACDF patients had significantly reduced contribution to total cervical ROM from the operative level (by 15%, P < 0.001), and significantly elevated contribution from the caudal adjacent level (by 5.9%, P < 0.001), first cranial adjacent level (by 3.3%, P < 0.001), second cranial adjacent level (by 5.3%, P < 0.001), and third cranial adjacent level (by 3.0%, P < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: Compensation for the loss of motion at the operative level in ACDF is seen throughout the unfused cervical spine. Cervical disc arthroplasty, however, increases total cervical ROM compared with ACDF and maintains a physiologic distribution of ROM throughout the cervical spine at 2 years, potentially lowering the risk for adjacent segment breakdown.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21508886     DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31821cfd47

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


  22 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.  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 3.  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

4.  Iatrogenic contributions to cervical adjacent segment pathology: review article.

Authors:  Haruki Ueda; Russel C Huang; Darren R Lebl
Journal:  HSS J       Date:  2014-08-02

Review 5.  Cervical disc replacement surgery: biomechanical properties, postoperative motion, and postoperative activity levels.

Authors:  Alfred Pisano; Melvin Helgeson
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2017-06

Review 6.  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

7.  Cervical motion segment percent contributions to flexion-extension during continuous functional movement in control subjects and arthrodesis patients.

Authors:  William J Anderst; William F Donaldson; Joon Y Lee; James D Kang
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2013-04-20       Impact factor: 3.468

8.  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

9.  [Effectiveness evaluation of Prodisc-C prosthesis for more than 10 years follow-up after total cervical disc replacement].

Authors:  Shuai Xu; Yan Liang; Zhenqi Zhu; Kaifeng Wang; Haiying Liu
Journal:  Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi       Date:  2019-04-15

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.