Adjacent Segment Mobility After ACDF Considering Fusion Status at the Implant Insertion Site

Overview

Journal Eur Spine J

Specialty Orthopedics

Date 2023 Mar 14

PMID 36917300

Authors

Bartosz Godlewski

Adam Bebenek

Maciej Dominiak

Marcin Bochniak

Piotr Cieslik

Tomasz Pawelczyk

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: This paper sets out to analyse mobility changes in segments adjacent to the operated segment. Additionally, it investigates the relationship between the degree of fusion in the operated disc space and mobility changes in the adjacent segments.

Methods: In total, 170 disc spaces were operated on in 104 consecutive patients qualified for one- or two-level surgery. The degree of mobility of segments directly above and below the implant insertion site was calculated. Measurements were performed the day before the surgery and 12 months post-surgery. Functional (flexion and extension) radiographs of the cervical spine and CT scans obtained 12 months post-surgery were used to evaluate the fusion status. The results were subjected to statistical analysis.

Results: Statistically significant increase in mobility was recorded for the segments situated immediately below the operative site, with a mean change in mobility of 1.7 mm. Complete fusion was demonstrated in 101 cases (71.1%), and partial fusion in 43 cases (29.9%). In the complete fusion subgroup, the ranges of both flexion and extension in the segments directly below the operative site were significantly greater than those in the partial fusion (pseudoarthrosis) subgroup.

Conclusion: The mobility of the adjacent segment below the implant insertion site was significantly increased at 12 months post-ACDF surgery. The range of this compensatory hypermobility was significantly greater in patients with complete fusion at the ACDF site than in cases of pseudoarthrosis. Implant subsidence was not associated with mobility changes in the segments directly above or directly below the site of ACDF surgery.

Citing Articles

Correlation between degeneration of cervical intervertebral disc and degeneration of paravertebral muscle.

Li Q, Long X, Wang R, Pengying N, Cai L, Wang L Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2024; 15:1391970.

PMID: 38962678 PMC: 11220226. DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2024.1391970.

References

Schwab J, DiAngelo D, Foley K . Motion compensation associated with single-level cervical fusion: where does the lost motion go?. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006; 31(21):2439-48. DOI: 10.1097/01.brs.0000239125.54761.23. View

Yang X, Donk R, Arts M, Arnts H, Walraevens J, Zhai Z . Maintaining range of motion after cervical discectomy does not prevent adjacent segment degeneration. Spine J. 2019; 19(11):1816-1823. DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2019.07.011. View

Alhashash M, Shousha M, Boehm H . Adjacent Segment Disease After Cervical Spine Fusion: Evaluation of a 70 Patient Long-Term Follow-Up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2017; 43(9):605-609. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000002377. View

Godlewski B, Bebenek A, Dominiak M, Karpinski G, Cieslik P, Pawelczyk T . PEEK versus titanium-coated PEEK cervical cages: fusion rate. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2022; 164(6):1501-1507. DOI: 10.1007/s00701-022-05217-7. View

Godlewski B, Bebenek A, Dominiak M, Bochniak M, Cieslik P, Pawelczyk T . Reliability and Utility of Various Methods for Evaluation of Bone Union after Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion. J Clin Med. 2022; 11(20). PMC: 9605251. DOI: 10.3390/jcm11206066. View

Battie M, Videman T, Kaprio J, Gibbons L, Gill K, Manninen H . The Twin Spine Study: contributions to a changing view of disc degeneration. Spine J. 2008; 9(1):47-59. DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2008.11.011. View

Seo M, Choi D . Adjacent segment disease after fusion for cervical spondylosis; myth or reality?. Br J Neurosurg. 2008; 22(2):195-9. DOI: 10.1080/02688690701790605. View

Cho S, Riew K . Adjacent segment disease following cervical spine surgery. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2013; 21(1):3-11. DOI: 10.5435/JAAOS-21-01-3. View

Hilibrand A, Carlson G, Palumbo M, Jones P, Bohlman H . Radiculopathy and myelopathy at segments adjacent to the site of a previous anterior cervical arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1999; 81(4):519-28. DOI: 10.2106/00004623-199904000-00009. View

10.

Latka D, Kozlowska K, Miekisiak G, Latka K, Chowaniec J, Olbrycht T . Safety and efficacy of cervical disc arthroplasty in preventing the adjacent segment disease: a meta-analysis of mid- to long-term outcomes in prospective, randomized, controlled multicenter studies. Ther Clin Risk Manag. 2019; 15:531-539. PMC: 6445235. DOI: 10.2147/TCRM.S196349. View

11.

Goffin J, Geusens E, Vantomme N, Quintens E, Waerzeggers Y, Depreitere B . Long-term follow-up after interbody fusion of the cervical spine. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2004; 17(2):79-85. DOI: 10.1097/00024720-200404000-00001. View

12.

Chen S, LeVasseur C, Pitcairn S, Kanter A, Okonkwo D, Shaw J . Surgery-related Factors Do Not Affect Short-term Adjacent Segment Kinematics After Anterior Cervical Arthrodesis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2021; 46(23):1630-1636. PMC: 8536797. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000004080. View

13.

Godlewski B, Stachura M, Czepko R, Banach M, Czepko R . Analysis of changes in cervical spinal curvature and intervertebral disk space height following ACDF surgery in a group of 100 patients followed up for 12 months. J Clin Neurosci. 2018; 52:92-99. DOI: 10.1016/j.jocn.2018.04.005. View

14.

Yang X, Bartels R, Donk R, Arts M, Goedmakers C, Vleggeert-Lankamp C . The association of cervical sagittal alignment with adjacent segment degeneration. Eur Spine J. 2019; 29(11):2655-2664. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-019-06157-0. View

15.

Boden S, McCowin P, DAVIS D, Dina T, Mark A, Wiesel S . Abnormal magnetic-resonance scans of the cervical spine in asymptomatic subjects. A prospective investigation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1990; 72(8):1178-84. View

16.

Gore D . Roentgenographic findings in the cervical spine in asymptomatic persons: a ten-year follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001; 26(22):2463-6. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-200111150-00013. View

17.

Nabhan A, Ishak B, Steudel W, Ramadhan S, Steimer O . Assessment of adjacent-segment mobility after cervical disc replacement versus fusion: RCT with 1 year's results. Eur Spine J. 2011; 20(6):934-41. PMC: 3099167. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-010-1588-2. View

18.

Maldonado C, Paz R, Martin C . Adjacent-level degeneration after cervical disc arthroplasty versus fusion. Eur Spine J. 2011; 20 Suppl 3:403-7. PMC: 3175825. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-011-1916-1. View

19.

Luo J, Wang H, Peng J, Deng Z, Zhang Z, Liu S . Rate of Adjacent Segment Degeneration of Cervical Disc Arthroplasty Versus Fusion Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. World Neurosurg. 2018; 113:225-231. DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2018.02.113. View

20.

Eck J, Humphreys S, Lim T, Jeong S, Kim J, Hodges S . Biomechanical study on the effect of cervical spine fusion on adjacent-level intradiscal pressure and segmental motion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2002; 27(22):2431-4. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-200211150-00003. View