Literature DB >> 23158120

Comparison of adjacent segment degeneration five years after single level cervical fusion and cervical arthroplasty: a retrospective controlled study.

Yu Sun1, Yan-bin Zhao, Sheng-fa Pan, Fei-fei Zhou, Zhong-qiang Chen, Zhong-jun Liu.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Cervical arthroplasty is indicated to preserve cervical motion and prevent accelerated adjacent segment degeneration. Whether accelerated adjacent segment degeneration is prevented in the long term is unclear. This trial compared adjacent segment degeneration in Bryan disc arthroplasty with that in anterior cervical decompression and fusion five years after the surgery.
METHODS: We studied patients with single level degenerative cervical disc disease. The extent of adjacent segment degeneration was estimated from lateral X-rays.
RESULTS: Twenty-six patients underwent single level Bryan disc arthroplasty and twenty-four patients underwent single level anterior cervical decompression and fusion. All patients were followed up for an average of sixty months. In the Bryan arthroplasty group, nine (17.6%) segments developed adjacent segment degeneration, which was significantly lower than that (60.4%) in the anterior cervical decompression and fusion group. Eleven segments in the Bryan arthroplasty group developed heterotopic ossification according to McAfee's classification and two segments had range of motion less than 2°. In the heterotopic ossification group, four (19.5%) segments developed adjacent segment degeneration, similar to the number in the non-heterotopic ossification group (16.7%). Adjacent segment degeneration rate was 50% in grade IV group but 11.8% in grade II to III.
CONCLUSIONS: Adjacent segment degeneration was accelerated after anterior cervical decompression and fusion. However, Bryan disc arthroplasty avoided accelerated adjacent segment degeneration by preserving motion. Patients with grade IV heterotopic ossification lost motion, and the rate of adjacent segment degeneration was higher than that in patients without heterotopic ossification.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23158120

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Chin Med J (Engl)        ISSN: 0366-6999            Impact factor:   2.628


  14 in total

1.  Dynamic cervical stabilization: a multicenter study.

Authors:  Guy Matgé; Peter Buddenberg; Marcus Eif; Holger Schenke; Joerg Herdmann
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-09-02       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 2.  Complications of cervical total disc replacement and their associations with heterotopic ossification: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Nicholas Hui; Kevin Phan; Hoi Man Kevin Cheng; Yueh-Hsin Lin; Ralph J Mobbs
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2020-04-11       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  The association of cervical sagittal alignment with adjacent segment degeneration.

Authors:  Xiaoyu Yang; Ronald H M A Bartels; Roland Donk; Mark P Arts; Caroline M W Goedmakers; Carmen L A Vleggeert-Lankamp
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2019-10-12       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  Safety of Anterior Cervical Disc Arthroplasty in the Ambulatory Setting: an Eastern European Experience.

Authors:  Artsiom Klimko; Dragos Bouros; Isabella Mindea; Stefan Mindea
Journal:  Maedica (Bucur)       Date:  2022-03

5.  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

Review 6.  Polyurethane on titanium unconstrained disc arthroplasty versus anterior discectomy and fusion for the treatment of cervical disc disease: a review of level I-II randomized clinical trials including clinical outcomes.

Authors:  María Aragonés; Eduardo Hevia; Carlos Barrios
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-09-12       Impact factor: 3.134

7.  Clinical and radiological outcomes following hybrid surgery in the treatment of multi-level cervical spondylosis: over a 2-year follow-up.

Authors:  Ji-Sheng Shi; Bin Lin; Chao Xue; Hai-Shen Zhang; Zhi-Da Chen; Zhong-Sheng Zhao
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2015-12-16       Impact factor: 2.359

8.  The Role of Posterior Longitudinal Ligament in Cervical Disc Replacement: An Ovine Cadaveric Biomechanical Analysis.

Authors:  Cheng-Cheng Yu; Ding-Jun Hao; Yu-Li Ma; Da-Geng Huang; Hou-Kun Li; Hang Feng; Qian Hou
Journal:  Med Sci Monit       Date:  2016-05-31

9.  One-Level Versus 2-Level Treatment With Cervical Disc Arthroplasty or Fusion: Outcomes Up to 7 Years.

Authors:  Matthew F Gornet; Todd H Lanman; J Kenneth Burkus; Scott D Hodges; Jeffrey R McConnell; Randall F Dryer; Francine W Schranck; Anne G Copay
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2019-12-31

Review 10.  The prevalence of heterotopic ossification among patients after cervical artificial disc replacement: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Lingde Kong; Qinghua Ma; Fei Meng; Junming Cao; Kunlun Yu; Yong Shen
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2017-06       Impact factor: 1.817

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.