Literature DB >> 28676980

Clinical and radiological outcome at 10 years of follow-up after total cervical disc replacement.

Christoph Mehren1,2, Franziska Heider3,4, Christoph J Siepe3,4, Bernhard Zillner3,4, Ralph Kothe5,6, Andreas Korge3,4, H Michael Mayer3,4.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Previous studies have demonstrated that total cervical disc replacement (cTDR) represents a viable treatment alternative to the 'gold standard' anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for the treatment of well-defined cervical pathologies at short- and mid-term follow-up (FU). However, the implementation and acceptance of a non-fusion philosophy is closely associated with its avoidance of adjacent segment degeneration. Proof of the functional sustainability and clinical improvement of symptoms at long-term FU is still pending. The aim of this ongoing prospective study was to investigate the clinical and radiological results of cTDR at long-term FU.
METHODS: 50 patients were treated surgically within a non-randomised prospective study framework with cTDR (ProDisc C™, Synthes, Paoli, PA, USA). Patients were examined preoperatively followed by routine clinical and radiological examinations at 1, 5 and 10 years after surgery, respectively. In addition to the clinical scores, conventional X-ray images of the cervical spine were taken in anteroposterior and lateral view as well as flexion/extension images. Clinical outcome scores included parameters such as the Neck Disability Index (NDI), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), arm and neck pain self-assessment questionnaires as well as subjective patient satisfaction rates. The radiological outcome variables included the range of motion (ROM) of the implanted prosthesis between maximum flexion and extension images, the occurrence of heterotopic ossifications and radiographic signs of adjacent segment degenerative changes. The reoperation rate following cTDR was recorded as a secondary outcome variable.
RESULTS: A significant and maintained clinical improvement of all clinical outcome scores was observed after a mean FU of 10.2 years (VASarm 6.3-2.1; VASneck 6.4-1.9; NDI 21-6; p < 0.05). An increase in the incidence and the extent of heterotopic ossifications was noted during the post-operative course with a significant influence on the function of the prosthesis, which, however, did not reveal any detrimental effect on the patients' clinical symptomatology. Prosthesis mobility declined from 9.0° preoperatively and 9.1° at 1 year FU to 7.7° and 7.6° at the five- and ten-year FU examinations, respectively. Radiological signs of adjacent segment degeneration were detected in 13/38 (35.7%), however, in only 3/38 (7.9%) patients this radiological changes were associated with clinical symptoms requiring conservative treatment. Intraoperative technical failure in two cases required interbody fusion with a cage (2/50). One patient (1/48, 2.1%) treated this motion device had revision surgery at the index level.
CONCLUSION: Cervical total disc replacement with ProDisc C demonstrated a significant and maintained improvement of all clinical outcome parameters at a follow-up of ≥10 years. The present long-term data reveal that with an exceptionally low implant-related reoperation rate and low symptomatic adjacent segment degeneration rate, cTDR may be regarded as a safe and viable treatment option.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Adjacent segment disease; Heterotopic ossification; Long-term follow-up; Prodisc C; Total cervical disc replacement

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28676980     DOI: 10.1007/s00586-017-5204-6

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


  39 in total

1.  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

2.  Cervical total disc replacement with the Mobi-C cervical artificial disc compared with anterior discectomy and fusion for treatment of 2-level symptomatic degenerative disc disease: a prospective, randomized, controlled multicenter clinical trial: clinical article.

Authors:  Reginald J Davis; Kee D Kim; Michael S Hisey; Gregory A Hoffman; Hyun W Bae; Steven E Gaede; Ralph F Rashbaum; Pierce Dalton Nunley; Daniel L Peterson; John K Stokes
Journal:  J Neurosurg Spine       Date:  2013-09-06

3.  Prospective, Randomized Comparison of Cervical Total Disk Replacement Versus Anterior Cervical Fusion: Results at 48 Months Follow-up.

Authors:  Michael S Hisey; Hyun W Bae; Reginald J Davis; Steven Gaede; Greg Hoffman; Kee D Kim; Pierce D Nunley; Daniel Peterson; Ralph F Rashbaum; John Stokes; Donna D Ohnmeiss
Journal:  J Spinal Disord Tech       Date:  2015-05

4.  The factors that influence the postoperative segmental range of motion after cervical artificial disc replacement.

Authors:  Kyung-Chung Kang; Chong-Suh Lee; Jeong-Hoon Han; Sung-Soo Chung
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2010-05-23       Impact factor: 4.166

5.  Kyphotic malalignment after anterior cervical fusion is one of the factors promoting the degenerative process in adjacent intervertebral levels.

Authors:  A Katsuura; S Hukuda; Y Saruhashi; K Mori
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 3.134

6.  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

7.  The fate of heterotopic ossification associated with cervical artificial disc replacement.

Authors:  Seong Yi; Jaekeun Oh; Gwihyun Choi; Tae Yup Kim; Hyun Chul Shin; Keung Nyun Kim; Keun Su Kim; Do Heum Yoon
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2014-12-01       Impact factor: 3.468

8.  Long-term Outcomes of the US FDA IDE Prospective, Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial Comparing PCM Cervical Disc Arthroplasty With Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion.

Authors:  Frank M Phillips; Fred H Geisler; Kye M Gilder; Christopher Reah; Kelli M Howell; Paul C McAfee
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2015-05-15       Impact factor: 3.468

9.  Symptomatic adjacent segment disease after cervical total disc replacement: re-examining the clinical and radiological evidence with established criteria.

Authors:  Pierce D Nunley; Ajay Jawahar; David A Cavanaugh; Charles R Gordon; Eubulus J Kerr; Phillip Andrew Utter
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2013-01-11       Impact factor: 4.166

10.  Clinical and radiographic outcomes of cervical disc replacement with a new prosthesis.

Authors:  Jinhao Miao; Fengbin Yu; Ye Shen; Naya He; Yong Kuang; Xinwei Wang; Deyu Chen
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2013-10-02       Impact factor: 4.166

View more
  15 in total

1.  Clinical and radiological evaluation of cervical disc arthroplasty with 5-year follow-up: a prospective study of 384 patients.

Authors:  T Dufour; J Beaurain; J Huppert; P Dam-Hieu; P Bernard; J P Steib
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2019-07-30       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Heterotopic ossification is related to change in disc space angle after Prestige-LP cervical disc arthroplasty.

Authors:  Lingyun Hu; Jianying Zhang; Hao Liu; Yang Meng; Yi Yang; Guangzhou Li; Chen Ding; Beiyu Wang
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2019-07-05       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  Radiographic cervical spine degenerative findings: a study on a large population from age 18 to 97 years.

Authors:  Youping Tao; Fabio Galbusera; Frank Niemeyer; Dino Samartzis; Daniel Vogele; Hans-Joachim Wilke
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2020-10-06       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 4.  The Michel Benoist and Robert Mulholland yearly European Spine Journal Review : A survey of the "medical" articles in the European Spine Journal, 2017.

Authors:  Michel Benoist
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2017-12-21       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  Single-level cervical arthroplasty with ProDisc-C artificial disc: 10-year follow-up results in one centre.

Authors:  Yanbin Zhao; Feifei Zhou; Yu Sun; Shengfa Pan
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2019-09-05       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 6.  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

7.  Segmental Motion of Cervical Arthroplasty Leads to Decreased Adjacent-Level Degeneration: Analysis of the 7-Year Postoperative Results of a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Jeffrey M Spivak; Jack E Zigler; Travis Philipp; Michael Janssen; Bruce Darden; Kris Radcliff
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2022-02-17

8.  [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

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.  Clinical and radiographic outcomes of cervical disc arthroplasty with Prestige-LP Disc: a minimum 6-year follow-up study.

Authors:  Junfeng Zeng; Hao Liu; Xin Rong; Beiyu Wang; Yi Yang; Xinlin Gao; Tingkui Wu; Ying Hong
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2018-08-07       Impact factor: 2.362

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.