Literature DB >> 21938372

Results of cervical arthroplasty compared with anterior discectomy and fusion: four-year clinical outcomes in a prospective, randomized controlled trial.

Rick C Sasso1, Paul A Anderson, K Daniel Riew, John G Heller.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The published two-year results of the pivotal U.S. Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption trial with the use of the Bryan cervical disc arthroplasty compared with anterior cervical discectomy with fusion for treating single-level degenerative cervical disc disease revealed a significantly superior overall success rate in the arthroplasty group. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the midterm safety and effectiveness of the Bryan disc as an alternative to arthrodesis following anterior cervical discectomy.
METHODS: A prospective, multicenter randomized clinical trial was undertaken for the treatment of persistent radiculopathy or myelopathy due to single-level cervical disc herniations or spondylosis. Patients were randomized to treatment with either the Bryan disc (the arthroplasty group; 242 patients) or anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (the fusion group; 221 patients). Patients completed preoperative and postoperative self-assessment forms at specified intervals and had radiographs made preoperatively, at six weeks, and at three, six, twelve, twenty-four, and forty-eight months after surgery. The primary outcome measure was overall success, a composite variable of safety and efficacy measures. Numerous secondary measures were assessed. The follow-up data for up to twenty-four months have been previously published. We report in the present study the forty-eight-month data collected on 181 patients who received the Bryan disc and 138 patients who underwent anterior cervical discectomy and fusion.
RESULTS: The study groups were demographically similar. Substantial reduction in Neck Disability Index scores occurred in both groups compared with preoperative values. The greater improvement in the Neck Disability Index score in the Bryan disc cohort persisted through the four-year follow-up period (p < 0.001). The four-year overall success rates were 85.1% and 72.5% for the arthroplasty and fusion groups, respectively (p = 0.004). The improvement in the arm pain score was substantial for both groups and significantly greater in the Bryan disc cohort (p = 0.028), and the neck pain scores showed persistently greater improvement in the Bryan disc group at forty-eight months of follow-up (p = 0.001). Short Form-36 physical component score improvement remained greater among the Bryan disc cohort (p = 0.007). The mean range of motion for the Bryan disc was 8.08° and 8.48° at twenty-four and forty-eight months, respectively. Total and serious adverse event rates were similar between the groups.
CONCLUSIONS: The forty-eight-month follow-up data in the present report showed consistent, sustained significantly superior outcomes for cervical spine arthroplasty compared with cervical spine fusion. The arthroplasty cohort continued to show significantly greater improvements in Neck Disability Index, neck pain score, arm pain score, and Short Form-36 physical component score, as well as the primary outcome measure, overall success, at forty-eight months following surgery.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21938372     DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.J.00476

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am        ISSN: 0021-9355            Impact factor:   5.284


  79 in total

1.  Subject-specific inverse dynamics of the head and cervical spine during in vivo dynamic flexion-extension.

Authors:  William J Anderst; William F Donaldson; Joon Y Lee; James D Kang
Journal:  J Biomech Eng       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 2.097

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

Review 3.  Factors that may affect outcome in cervical artificial disc replacement: a systematic review.

Authors:  Jian Kang; Changgui Shi; Yifei Gu; Chengwei Yang; Rui Gao
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-07-09       Impact factor: 3.134

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

5.  The Norwegian Cervical Arthroplasty Trial (NORCAT): 2-year clinical outcome after single-level cervical arthroplasty versus fusion-a prospective, single-blinded, randomized, controlled multicenter study.

Authors:  Jarle Sundseth; Oddrun Anita Fredriksli; Frode Kolstad; Lars Gunnar Johnsen; Are Hugo Pripp; Hege Andresen; Erling Myrseth; Kay Müller; Øystein P Nygaard; John-Anker Zwart
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2016-12-23       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 6.  Adjacent level disease-background and update based on disc replacement data.

Authors:  I David Kaye; Alan S Hilibrand
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2017-06

7.  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

8.  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

9.  Motion path of the instant center of rotation in the cervical spine during in vivo dynamic flexion-extension: implications for artificial disc design and evaluation of motion quality after arthrodesis.

Authors:  William Anderst; Emma Baillargeon; William Donaldson; Joon Lee; James Kang
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2013-05-01       Impact factor: 3.468

10.  What are the associative factors of adjacent segment degeneration after anterior cervical spine surgery? Comparative study between anterior cervical fusion and arthroplasty with 5-year follow-up MRI and CT.

Authors:  Jeong Yoon Park; Kyung Hyun Kim; Sung Uk Kuh; Dong Kyu Chin; Keun Su Kim; Yong Eun Cho
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2012-12-15       Impact factor: 3.134

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.