Literature DB >> 23584163

Five-year results of cervical disc prostheses in the SWISSspine registry.

Emin Aghayev1, Christian Bärlocher, Friedrich Sgier, Mustafa Hasdemir, Klaus F Steinsiepe, Frank Wernli, François Porchet, Oliver Hausmann, Aymen Ramadan, Gianluca Maestretti, Uwe Ebeling, Michal Neukamp, Christoph Röder.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The Swiss Federal Office of Public Health demanded a nationwide HTA-registry for cervical total disc arthroplasty (TDA), to decide about its reimbursement. The goal of the SWISSspine registry is to generate evidence about the safety and efficiency of cervical TDA.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three hundred thirty-two cases treated between 3.2005 and 6.2006 who were eligible for 5 years follow-ups were included in the study. Follow-up rates for 3-6 months, 1, 2 and 5 years were 84.6, 74.4, 50.6 and 64.8 %, respectively. Outcome measures were neck and arm pain, medication, quality of life, intraoperative and postoperative complication and revision rates. In addition, segmental mobility, ossification, adjacent and distant segment degeneration were analyzed at the 5-year follow-up.
RESULTS: There was significant, clinically relevant and lasting reduction of neck (preop/postop 60/21 VAS points) and arm pain (preop/postop VAS 67/17) and a consequently decreased analgesics consumption and quality of life improvement (preop/postop 0.39/0.82 EQ-5D points) until the 5-year follow-up. The rates for intraoperative and early postoperative complications were 0.6 and 7.2 %, respectively. In 0.6 % an early and in 3.9 % a late revision surgery was performed. At the 5-year follow-up, the average range of motion of the mobile segments (88.2 %) was 10.2°. In 40.7 % of the patients osteophytes at least potentially affecting range of motion were seen.
CONCLUSIONS: Cervical TDA appeared as safe and efficient in long-term pain alleviation, consequent reduction of pain killer consumption and in improvement of quality of life. The improvement is stable over the 5 years postoperative period. The vast majority of treated segments remained mobile after 5 years, although 40.7 % of patients showed osteophytes.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23584163      PMCID: PMC3731507          DOI: 10.1007/s00586-013-2770-0

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


  38 in total

Review 1.  Prevalence of heterotopic ossification after cervical total disc arthroplasty: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Jian Chen; Xinwei Wang; Wanshan Bai; Xiaolong Shen; Wen Yuan
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-12-02       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 2.  Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials: comparison of total disk replacement with anterior cervical decompression and fusion.

Authors:  Lin Yu; Yueming Song; Xi Yang; Chaoliang Lv
Journal:  Orthopedics       Date:  2011-10-05       Impact factor: 1.390

3.  Difference in occurrence of heterotopic ossification according to prosthesis type in the cervical artificial disc replacement.

Authors:  Seong Yi; Keung Nyun Kim; Moon Sul Yang; Joong Won Yang; Hoon Kim; Yoon Ha; Do Heum Yoon; Hyun Chul Shin
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2010-07-15       Impact factor: 3.468

4.  Cervical disc arthroplasty versus fusion for single-level symptomatic cervical disc disease: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Hua Jiang; Zezhang Zhu; Yong Qiu; Bangping Qian; Xusheng Qiu; Mingliang Ji
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2011-10-09       Impact factor: 3.067

5.  Eight-year clinical and radiological follow-up of the Bryan cervical disc arthroplasty.

Authors:  Gerald M Y Quan; Jean-Marc Vital; Steve Hansen; Vincent Pointillart
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2011-04-15       Impact factor: 3.468

6.  Comparative effectiveness research across two spine registries.

Authors:  Emin Aghayev; Julia Henning; Everard Munting; Peter Diel; Patrick Moulin; Christoph Röder
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2012-03-14       Impact factor: 3.134

7.  Factors affecting the incidence of symptomatic adjacent-level disease in cervical spine after total disc arthroplasty: 2- to 4-year follow-up of 3 prospective randomized trials.

Authors:  Pierce D Nunley; Ajay Jawahar; Eubulus J Kerr; Charles J Gordon; David A Cavanaugh; Elisa M Birdsong; Marolyn Stocks; Guy Danielson
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2012-03-15       Impact factor: 3.468

8.  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

9.  Benchmarking in the SWISSspine registry: results of 52 Dynardi lumbar total disc replacements compared with the data pool of 431 other lumbar disc prostheses.

Authors:  Emin Aghayev; Christoph Röder; Thomas Zweig; Christian Etter; Othmar Schwarzenbach
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2010-08-15       Impact factor: 3.134

10.  Results of the prospective, randomized, controlled multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study of the ProDisc-C total disc replacement versus anterior discectomy and fusion for the treatment of 1-level symptomatic cervical disc disease.

Authors:  Daniel Murrey; Michael Janssen; Rick Delamarter; Jeffrey Goldstein; Jack Zigler; Bobby Tay; Bruce Darden
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2008-09-06       Impact factor: 4.166

View more
  7 in total

1.  Prospective, Randomized Comparison of One-level Mobi-C Cervical Total Disc Replacement vs. Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: Results at 5-year Follow-up.

Authors:  Michael S Hisey; Jack E Zigler; Robert Jackson; Pierce D Nunley; Hyun W Bae; Kee D Kim; Donna D Ohnmeiss
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2016-02-26

2.  Does neck pain as chief complaint influence the outcome of cervical total disc replacement?

Authors:  S Finkenstaedt; A F Mannion; T F Fekete; D Haschtmann; F S Kleinstueck; U Mutter; H J Becker; D Bellut; F Porchet
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2019-07-08       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  Five-year results of lumbar disc prostheses in the SWISSspine registry.

Authors:  Emin Aghayev; Christian Etter; Christian Bärlocher; Friedrich Sgier; Philippe Otten; Paul Heini; Oliver Hausmann; Gianluca Maestretti; Martin Baur; François Porchet; Thomas M Markwalder; Stefan Schären; Michal Neukamp; Christoph Röder
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2014-06-20       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 4.  The Mobi-C cervical disc for one-level and two-level cervical disc replacement: a review of the literature.

Authors:  Matthew D Alvin; Thomas E Mroz
Journal:  Med Devices (Auckl)       Date:  2014-11-26

5.  The History, Present, and Future of Spine Surgery in Switzerland.

Authors:  Martin N Stienen; Oliver N Hausmann
Journal:  Neurospine       Date:  2020-06-30

Review 6.  Quality of Life in Patients Undergoing Spine Surgery: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Nikhil R Nayak; James H Stephen; Matthew A Piazza; Adetokunbo A Obayemi; Sherman C Stein; Neil R Malhotra
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2018-07-29

7.  Revision Surgeries at the Index Level After Cervical Disc Arthroplasty - A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Andrei Fernandes Joaquim; Nathan J Lee; K Daniel Riew
Journal:  Neurospine       Date:  2021-03-31
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.