Clinical and Radiographic Reports Following Cervical Arthroplasty: a 24-month Follow-up

Overview

Journal Int Orthop

Specialty Orthopedics

Date 2008 May 23

PMID 18496689

Citations 19

Authors

Yan Cai Yang

Lin Nie

Lei Cheng

Yong Hou

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

We reviewed patients with cervical disc prosthesis replacement for single-level cervical disc disease to evaluate its clinical effect and maintenance of cervical spine motion. Fifteen patients underwent Bryan artificial cervical disc replacement and were followed-up for at least 24 months. No neurological or vascular complications were observed during or after operation. JOA, VAS, and NDI scores showed statistical significant improvement in our follow-up. The procedure achieved an 87% (13/15) satisfactory rate at 24-month evaluations according to Odom's criteria. The range of motion (ROM) of the cervical spine, treated segment, adjacent segment, and functional spinal unit (FSU) decreased at early follow-up, but they recovered to the preoperative level at 12- and 24-month follow-up. Also, preoperative lordosis of the cervical spine and FSU were not only maintained but also even improved during the 24-month follow-up. No obvious degeneration of adjacent discs were found at MRI. There were no cases of prosthesis subsidence or extrusion. The cervical disc prosthesis showed a good clinical outcome; it also restored ROM of the cervical spine and reestablished cervical curvature in our 24-month follow-up. But to be sure of its long term effect, a longer follow-up is needed.

Citing Articles

The influence of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion surgery on cervical muscles and the correlation between related muscle changes and surgical efficacy.

Sun C, Xiang H, Wu X, Chen B, Guo Z J Orthop Surg Res. 2024; 19(1):187.

PMID: 38493285 PMC: 10943845. DOI: 10.1186/s13018-024-04605-2.

Mid-long-term follow-up of operated level kinematics after single-level artificial cervical disc replacement with Bryan disc.

Li C, Yu X, Xiong Y, Yang Y, Wang F, Zhao H J Orthop Surg Res. 2022; 17(1):149.

PMID: 35264233 PMC: 8905739. DOI: 10.1186/s13018-022-03051-2.

The Changes in Cervical Biomechanics After CTDR and Its Association With Heterotopic Ossification: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Hui N, Phan K, Lee M, Kerferd J, Singh T, Mobbs R Global Spine J. 2020; 11(4):565-574.

PMID: 32677512 PMC: 8119929. DOI: 10.1177/2192568220922949.

Cervical Total Disc Replacement and Heterotopic Ossification: A Review of Literature Outcomes and Biomechanics.

Hui N, Phan K, Kerferd J, Lee M, Mobbs R Asian Spine J. 2020; 15(1):127-137.

PMID: 32050310 PMC: 7904491. DOI: 10.31616/asj.2019.0234.

Evidence-based use of arthroplasty in cervical degenerative disc disease.

Joaquim A, Makhni M, Riew K Int Orthop. 2019; 43(4):767-775.

PMID: 30623197 DOI: 10.1007/s00264-018-04281-y.

References

Pickett G, Mitsis D, Sekhon L, Sears W, Duggal N . Effects of a cervical disc prosthesis on segmental and cervical spine alignment. Neurosurg Focus. 2005; 17(3):E5. DOI: 10.3171/foc.2004.17.3.5. View

Wu W, Thuomas K, Hedlund R, Leszniewski W, Vavruch L . Degenerative changes following anterior cervical discectomy and fusion evaluated by fast spin-echo MR imaging. Acta Radiol. 1996; 37(5):614-7. DOI: 10.1177/02841851960373P239. View

Goffin J, Van Calenbergh F, van Loon J, Casey A, Kehr P, Liebig K . Intermediate follow-up after treatment of degenerative disc disease with the Bryan Cervical Disc Prosthesis: single-level and bi-level. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003; 28(24):2673-8. DOI: 10.1097/01.BRS.0000099392.90849.AA. View

Hunter L, Braunstein E, Bailey R . Radiographic changes following anterior cervical fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1980; 5(5):399-401. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-198009000-00002. View

Cherubino P, Benazzo F, Borromeo U, Perle S . Degenerative arthritis of the adjacent spinal joints following anterior cervical spinal fusion: clinicoradiologic and statistical correlations. Ital J Orthop Traumatol. 1990; 16(4):533-43. View

Leung C, Casey A, Goffin J, Kehr P, Liebig K, Lind B . Clinical significance of heterotopic ossification in cervical disc replacement: a prospective multicenter clinical trial. Neurosurgery. 2005; 57(4):759-63. DOI: 10.1093/neurosurgery/57.4.759. View

Katsuura A, Hukuda S, Saruhashi Y, Mori K . Kyphotic malalignment after anterior cervical fusion is one of the factors promoting the degenerative process in adjacent intervertebral levels. Eur Spine J. 2001; 10(4):320-4. PMC: 3611517. DOI: 10.1007/s005860000243. View

Dohler J, Kahn M, Hughes S . Instability of the cervical spine after anterior interbody fusion. A study on its incidence and clinical significance in 21 patients. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg (1978). 1985; 104(4):247-50. DOI: 10.1007/BF00450219. View

Baba H, Furusawa N, Imura S, Kawahara N, Tsuchiya H, Tomita K . Late radiographic findings after anterior cervical fusion for spondylotic myeloradiculopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1993; 18(15):2167-73. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-199311000-00004. View

10.

Yoon D, Yi S, Shin H, Kim K, Kim S . Clinical and radiological results following cervical arthroplasty. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2006; 148(9):943-50. DOI: 10.1007/s00701-006-0805-6. View

11.

Sekhon L . Cervical arthroplasty in the management of spondylotic myelopathy: 18-month results. Neurosurg Focus. 2005; 17(3):E8. DOI: 10.3171/foc.2004.17.3.8. View

12.

Ahrengart L, Sahlin K, Lindgren U . Myositis ossificans after total hip replacement and perioperative muscle ischemia. J Arthroplasty. 1987; 2(1):65-9. DOI: 10.1016/s0883-5403(87)80032-3. View

13.

Weinhoffer S, Guyer R, Herbert M, Griffith S . Intradiscal pressure measurements above an instrumented fusion. A cadaveric study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1995; 20(5):526-31. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-199503010-00004. View

14.

Gore D, Sepic S . Anterior cervical fusion for degenerated or protruded discs. A review of one hundred forty-six patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1984; 9(7):667-71. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-198410000-00002. View

15.

Chang U, Kim D, Lee M, Willenberg R, Kim S, Lim J . Changes in adjacent-level disc pressure and facet joint force after cervical arthroplasty compared with cervical discectomy and fusion. J Neurosurg Spine. 2007; 7(1):33-9. DOI: 10.3171/SPI-07/07/033. View

16.

Wang Y, Zhang X, Xiao S, Lu N, Wang Z, Zhou M . Clinical report of cervical arthroplasty in management of spondylotic myelopathy in Chinese. J Orthop Surg Res. 2006; 1:13. PMC: 1675991. DOI: 10.1186/1749-799X-1-13. View

17.

DePALMA A, Rothman R, Lewinnek G, Canale S . Anterior interbody fusion for severe cervical disc degeneration. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1972; 134(5):755-8. View

18.

Anderson P, Rouleau J . Intervertebral disc arthroplasty. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004; 29(23):2779-86. DOI: 10.1097/01.brs.0000146460.11591.8a. View

19.

Kim S, Shin J, Arbatin J, Park M, Chung Y, McAfee P . Effects of a cervical disc prosthesis on maintaining sagittal alignment of the functional spinal unit and overall sagittal balance of the cervical spine. Eur Spine J. 2007; 17(1):20-9. PMC: 2365535. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-007-0459-y. View

20.

Nabhan A, Ahlhelm F, Shariat K, Pitzen T, Steimer O, Steudel W . The ProDisc-C prosthesis: clinical and radiological experience 1 year after surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007; 32(18):1935-41. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31813162d8. View