Pretic-I Was a Safe and Effective Artificial Cervical Disc Prosthesis--a Retrospective and Comparative Study with 5-year Follow-up

Overview

Journal BMC Musculoskelet Disord

Publisher Biomed Central

Specialties Orthopedics
Physiology

Date 2021 Nov 25

PMID 34819053

Authors

Yingjun Guo

Hao Liu

Jianzhong Xu

Yuxiao Deng

XiaoLiang Tao

Yang Meng

Xiaofei Wang

Ying Hong

Beiyu Wang

Chen Ding

Wenjie Wu

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: The newly designed cervical disc prosthesis, Pretic-I, had been finished its limited clinical use for over 5 years. At a short-term follow-up of 2 years, we obtained satisfactory clinical results. The long-term clinical efficacy and safety of Pretic-I will now be analyzed.

Methods: Peri-operative parameters included intra-operative blood loss, operation time, off-bed time. Clinical parameters included visual analogue scale (VAS) for arm and neck, neck disability index (NDI), and Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score. Radiological parameters included C2-7 Cobb angle, Shell angle, and the range of motion (ROM) of C2-7, functional segment unit (FSU), and adjacent FSU. The CDA-related complications included adjacent segment degeneration (ASDeg), adjacent segment disease (ASDis), heterotopic ossification (HO), prosthesis subsidence, prosthesis displacement, and dysphagia.

Results: A total 64 patients from two independent centers received a single-level CDA with Discover (n = 32) and Pretic-I (n = 32), and all of patients finished a 5-year follow-up. There're no significant differences between two groups in peri-operative parameters. The clinical parameters improved greatly in Pretic-I group (p<0.0001), and there's no statistical difference from Discover group. Furthermore, Pretic-I could slightly improve the cervical curvature (15.08 ± 11.75 to 18.00 ± 10.61, p = 0.3079) and perfectly maintain the Shell angle (3.03 ± 3.68 to 2.23 ± 4.10, p = 0.1988), cervical ROM (52.48 ± 14.31 to 53.30 ± 11.71, p = 0.8062) and FSU ROM (12.20 ± 4.52 to 10.73 ± 4.45, p = 0.2002). The incidence of high-grade HO (Grade III-IV) at the final follow-up was significantly lower in Pretic-I group than in Discover group (12.50% vs. 34.38%, p = 0.0389, Statistical Power = 95.36%). The incidences of other CDA-related complications in Pretic-I group were also well-accepted, comparable to the Discover group, without significant differences.

Conclusion: CDA with Pretic-I demonstrated a well-accepted and sustained clinical outcome, with a significantly lower incidence of high-grade HO. This newly designed prosthesis is expected to become an alternative choice for cervical disc prosthesis in the future.

References

Hilibrand A, Robbins M . Adjacent segment degeneration and adjacent segment disease: the consequences of spinal fusion?. Spine J. 2004; 4(6 Suppl):190S-194S. DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2004.07.007. View

Mehren C, Suchomel P, Grochulla F, Barsa P, Sourkova P, Hradil J . Heterotopic ossification in total cervical artificial disc replacement. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006; 31(24):2802-6. DOI: 10.1097/01.brs.0000245852.70594.d5. View

Pandey P, Pawar I, Gupta J, Verma R . Comparison of Outcomes of Single-Level Anterior Cervical Discectomy With Fusion and Single-Level Artificial Cervical Disc Replacement for Single-Level Cervical Degenerative Disc Disease. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016; 42(1):E41-E49. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001696. View

Liu H, Deng Y, Liu Z, Wang B, Ding C, Hong Y . [Early effectiveness of cervical disc replacement by using Pretic-I]. Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2018; 31(5):513-518. PMC: 8498256. DOI: 10.7507/1002-1892.201612146. View

Suchomel P, Jurak L, Benes 3rd V, Brabec R, Bradac O, Elgawhary S . Clinical results and development of heterotopic ossification in total cervical disc replacement during a 4-year follow-up. Eur Spine J. 2009; 19(2):307-15. PMC: 2899807. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-009-1259-3. View

Radcliff K, Zigler J, Zigler J . Costs of cervical disc replacement versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for treatment of single-level cervical disc disease: an analysis of the Blue Health Intelligence database for acute and long-term costs and complications. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015; 40(8):521-9. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000000822. View

Zhou L, Lu J, Xu R, Liang B, Sun S, Zhao L . [Clinical observation of mid-stage complications after cervical disc replacement]. Zhongguo Gu Shang. 2010; 23(7):514-7. View

Cao J, Zhang Y, Shen Y, Ding W . Complications of Bryan cervical disc replacement. Orthop Surg. 2011; 2(2):86-93. PMC: 6583647. DOI: 10.1111/j.1757-7861.2010.00069.x. View

Basques B, Louie P, Mormol J, Khan J, Movassaghi K, Paul J . Multi- versus single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: comparing sagittal alignment, early adjacent segment degeneration, and clinical outcomes. Eur Spine J. 2018; 27(11):2745-2753. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-018-5677-y. View

10.

Botelho R . Preliminary clinical experience with the Bryan cervical disc prosthesis. Neurosurgery. 2003; 53(3):785; author reply 785-6. DOI: 10.1227/01.neu.0000082503.24918.d9. View

11.

Zou S, Gao J, Xu B, Lu X, Han Y, Meng H . Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) versus cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) for two contiguous levels cervical disc degenerative disease: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Eur Spine J. 2016; 26(4):985-997. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-016-4655-5. View

12.

Goffin J, Casey A, Kehr P, Liebig K, Lind B, Logroscino C . Preliminary clinical experience with the Bryan Cervical Disc Prosthesis. Neurosurgery. 2002; 51(3):840-5; discussion 845-7. DOI: 10.1227/00006123-200209000-00048. View

13.

Shin J . Comparison of Adjacent Segment Degeneration, Cervical Alignment, and Clinical Outcomes After One- and Multilevel Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion. Neurospine. 2019; 16(3):589-600. PMC: 6790739. DOI: 10.14245/ns.1938166.083. View

14.

Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang A, Buchner A . G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods. 2007; 39(2):175-91. DOI: 10.3758/bf03193146. View

15.

Thaler M, Hartmann S, Gstottner M, Lechner R, Gabl M, Bach C . Footprint mismatch in total cervical disc arthroplasty. Eur Spine J. 2012; 22(4):759-65. PMC: 3631036. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-012-2594-3. View