Long-term Follow-Up Results of Dynamic Cervical Implant in Patients with Cervical Disk Diseases: Compared with Arthroplasty

Overview

Journal J Neurol Surg A Cent Eur Neurosurg

Publisher Thieme

Specialty Gastroenterology

Date 2021 Dec 3

PMID 34861706

Authors

Li Zou

Hao Liu

Xin Rong

Xijiao Liu

Chen Ding

Yueming Song

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Arthroplasty has been proven to be a safe and effective treatment for patients with cervical degenerative disk disease (DDD). Dynamic Cervical Implant (DCI) has emerged as a novel implantation device for cervical DDD. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of these procedures after 5 years of follow-up in the DCI and arthroplasty groups.

Methods: This study retrospectively enrolled 79 consecutive cervical DDD patients with 41 DCI and 47 prostheses implanted. Radiographs were analyzed for intervertebral height and range of motion (ROM). Neural function of the patients was assessed using the Neck Disability Index score, visual analog scale, Japanese Orthopaedic Association score and 36-Item Short Form Survey.

Results: The DCI group had statistically lesser flexion/extension and bilateral bending ROM than the arthroplasty group at the operated level(s) ( < 0.05). The DCI group but not the orthoplast group showed improved lordotic alignment of C2-C7 and operated functional spinal unit ( < 0.05). No statistical difference was observed in the neural function of the two groups. Heterotopic ossification was found in 7 and 14 patients in the DCI and arthroplasty groups, respectively.

Conclusion: The 5-year follow-up results were comparable between the two groups. We believe that DCI implantation is a safe and effective procedure and could possibly become an alternative treatment for cervical DDD.

References

Matsunaga S, Kabayama S, Yamamoto T, Yone K, Sakou T, Nakanishi K . Strain on intervertebral discs after anterior cervical decompression and fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1999; 24(7):670-5. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-199904010-00011. View

ODOM G, FINNEY W, WOODHALL B . Cervical disk lesions. J Am Med Assoc. 1958; 166(1):23-8. DOI: 10.1001/jama.1958.02990010025006. View

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

Park S, Kim K, Jin Y, Kim H, Jahng T, Chung C . X-Ray-based Kinematic Analysis of Cervical Spine According to Prosthesis Designs: Analysis of the Mobi C, Bryan, PCM, and Prestige LP. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2013; 28(5):E291-7. DOI: 10.1097/BSD.0b013e318288a923. View

Lee S, Im Y, Kim K, Kim Y, Park W, Kim K . Comparison of cervical spine biomechanics after fixed- and mobile-core artificial disc replacement: a finite element analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011; 36(9):700-8. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181f5cb87. View

Tome-Bermejo F, Morales-Valencia J, Moreno-Perez J, Marfil-Perez J, Diaz-Dominguez E, Pinera A . Degenerative Cervical Disc Disease: Long-term Changes in Sagittal Alignment and Their Clinical Implications After Cervical Interbody Fusion Cage Subsidence: A Prospective Study With Standalone Lordotic Tantalum Cages. Clin Spine Surg. 2017; 30(5):E648-E655. DOI: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000000293. View

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

Peng C, Yue W, Basit A, Guo C, Tow B, Chen J . Intermediate Results of the Prestige LP Cervical Disc Replacement: Clinical and Radiological Analysis With Minimum Two-Year Follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010; 36(2):E105-11. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181d76f99. View

Shichang L, Yueming S, Limin L, Lei W, Zhongjie Z, Chunguang Z . Clinical and radiologic comparison of dynamic cervical implant arthroplasty and cervical total disc replacement for single-level cervical degenerative disc disease. J Clin Neurosci. 2016; 27:102-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.jocn.2015.05.072. View

10.

Wang L, Song Y, Liu L, Liu H, Li T . Clinical and radiographic outcomes of dynamic cervical implant replacement for treatment of single-level degenerative cervical disc disease: a 24-month follow-up. Eur Spine J. 2014; 23(8):1680-7. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-014-3180-7. View

11.

Quan G, Vital J, Hansen S, Pointillart V . Eight-year clinical and radiological follow-up of the Bryan cervical disc arthroplasty. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010; 36(8):639-46. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181dc9b51. View

12.

Wigfield C, Gill S, Nelson R, Langdon I, Metcalf N, Robertson J . Influence of an artificial cervical joint compared with fusion on adjacent-level motion in the treatment of degenerative cervical disc disease. J Neurosurg. 2002; 96(1 Suppl):17-21. DOI: 10.3171/spi.2002.96.1.0017. View

13.

Kang H, Park P, La Marca F, Hollister S, Lin C . Analysis of load sharing on uncovertebral and facet joints at the C5-6 level with implantation of the Bryan, Prestige LP, or ProDisc-C cervical disc prosthesis: an in vivo image-based finite element study. Neurosurg Focus. 2010; 28(6):E9. DOI: 10.3171/2010.3.FOCUS1046. View

14.

Zeng J, Liu H, Chen H, Ding C, Rong X, Meng Y . Comparison of Heterotopic Ossification After Fixed- and Mobile-Core Cervical Disc Arthroplasty. World Neurosurg. 2018; 120:e1319-e1324. DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2018.09.075. View

15.

Bohlman H, Emery S, Goodfellow D, Jones P . Robinson anterior cervical discectomy and arthrodesis for cervical radiculopathy. Long-term follow-up of one hundred and twenty-two patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1993; 75(9):1298-307. DOI: 10.2106/00004623-199309000-00005. View

16.

Welke B, Schwarze M, Hurschler C, Book T, Magdu S, Daentzer D . In vitro investigation of a new dynamic cervical implant: comparison to spinal fusion and total disc replacement. Eur Spine J. 2015; 25(7):2247-54. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-015-4361-8. View

17.

Harrison D, HARRISON D, Cailliet R, Troyanovich S, Janik T, Holland B . Cobb method or Harrison posterior tangent method: which to choose for lateral cervical radiographic analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000; 25(16):2072-8. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-200008150-00011. View

18.

Garrido B, Taha T, Sasso R . Clinical outcomes of Bryan cervical disc arthroplasty a prospective, randomized, controlled, single site trial with 48-month follow-up. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2010; 23(6):367-71. DOI: 10.1097/BSD.0b013e3181bb8568. View

19.

Boody B, Lee E, Sasso W, Vinayek S, Demeter J, Sasso R . Functional Outcomes Associated With Adjacent-level Ossification Disease 10 Years After Cervical Disc Arthroplasty or ACDF. Clin Spine Surg. 2020; 33(9):E420-E425. DOI: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000000954. View

20.

Matge G, Berthold C, Nitish Gunness V, Hana A, Hertel F . Stabilization with the Dynamic Cervical Implant: a novel treatment approach following cervical discectomy and decompression. J Neurosurg Spine. 2015; 22(3):237-45. DOI: 10.3171/2014.10.SPINE131089. View