Literature DB >> 24417795

Cervical artificial disc replacement with ProDisc-C: clinical and radiographic outcomes with long-term follow-up.

Gregory M Malham1, Rhiannon M Parker2, Ngaire J Ellis2, Philip G Chan3, Dinesh Varma4.   

Abstract

Cervical artificial disc replacement (ADR) is indicated for the treatment of severe radiculopathy permitting neural decompression and maintenance of motion. We evaluated the clinical and radiographic outcomes in cervical ADR patients using the ProDisc-C device (DePuy Synthes, West Chester, PA, USA) with a 5-9 year follow-up. Data were collected through a prospective registry, with retrospective analysis performed on 24 consecutive patients treated with cervical ADR by a single surgeon. All patients underwent single- or two-level ADR with the ProDisc-C device. Outcome measures included neck and arm pain (visual analogue scale), disability (neck disability index [NDI]), complications and secondary surgery rates. Flexion-extension cervical radiographs were performed to assess range of motion (ROM) of the device and adjacent segment disease (ASD). Average follow-up was 7.7 years. Neck and arm pain improved 60% and 79%, respectively, and NDI had an improvement of 58%. There were no episodes of device migration or subsidence. Mean ROM of the device was 6.4°. Heterotopic ossification was present in seven patients (37%). Radiographic ASD below the device developed in four patients (21%) (one single-level and three two-level ADR). No patient required secondary surgery (repeat operations at the index level or adjacent levels). Fourteen out of 19 patients (74%) were able to return to employment, with a median return to work time of 1.3 months. The ProDisc-C device for cervical ADR is a safe option for patients providing excellent clinical outcomes, satisfactory return to work rates and maintenance of segmental motion despite radiographic evidence of heterotopic ossification and ASD on long-term follow-up.
Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Adjacent segment disease; Artificial disc replacement; Cervical; Heterotopic ossification; ProDisc-C; Range of motion; Reoperation

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24417795     DOI: 10.1016/j.jocn.2013.09.013

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Neurosci        ISSN: 0967-5868            Impact factor:   1.961


  14 in total

1.  Bone loss of the superior adjacent vertebral body immediately posterior to the anterior flange of Bryan cervical disc.

Authors:  Sang Hyun Kim; Young Sun Chung; Alexander E Ropper; Kyung Hoon Min; Tae Keun Ahn; Keun Soo Won; Dong Ah Shin; In Bo Han
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-03-19       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

Review 3.  The lexicon for periprosthetic bone loss versus osteolysis after cervical disc arthroplasty: a systematic review.

Authors:  Jenna M Wahbeh; Sang-Hyun Park; Patricia Campbell; Edward Ebramzadeh; Sophia N Sangiorgio
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2022-01-09       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  Clinical experience and two-year follow-up with a one-piece viscoelastic cervical total disc replacement.

Authors:  Kingsley Richard Chin; Jacob Ryan Lubinski; Kari Bracher Zimmers; Barry Eugene Sands; Fabio Pencle
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2017-12

5.  Cervical total disc replacement is superior to anterior cervical decompression and fusion: a meta-analysis of prospective randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Yujie Zhang; Chengzhen Liang; Yiqing Tao; Xiaopeng Zhou; Hao Li; Fangcai Li; Qixin Chen
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-03-30       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 6.  Prevalence of adjacent segment disease following cervical spine surgery: A PRISMA-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Lingde Kong; Junming Cao; Linfeng Wang; Yong Shen
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2016-07       Impact factor: 1.889

7.  Mid-term efficacy and safety of cervical disc arthroplasty versus fusion in cervical spondylosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Guo-Sheng Zhao; Qiao Zhang; Zheng-Xue Quan
Journal:  Biomed Rep       Date:  2016-12-02

8.  Cervical artificial disc extrusion after a paragliding accident.

Authors:  Tianyi Niu; Haydn Hoffman; Daniel C Lu
Journal:  Surg Neurol Int       Date:  2017-07-07

Review 9.  Are Controversial Issues in Cervical Total Disc Replacement Resolved or Unresolved?: A Review of Literature and Recent Updates.

Authors:  Chun-Kun Park; Kyeong-Sik Ryu
Journal:  Asian Spine J       Date:  2018-02-07

10.  Implant complications after one-level or two-level cervical disc arthroplasty: A retrospective single-centre study of 105 patients.

Authors:  Xin-Jie Liang; Wei-Yang Zhong; Ke Tang; Zheng-Xue Quan; Xiao-Ji Luo; Dian-Ming Jiang
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2020-09-18       Impact factor: 1.817

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.