Differences between 1- and 2-level cervical arthroplasty: more heterotopic ossification in 2-level disc replacement

Clinical article

View More View Less
  • 1 Departments of Neurosurgery (Neurological Institute),
  • 2 Obstetrics and Gynecology, and
  • 3 Radiology, Taipei Veterans General Hospital; and
  • 4 School of Medicine and
  • 5 Institute of Pharmacology, National Yang-Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan
Restricted access

Purchase Now

USD  $45.00

Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $369.00

JNS + Pediatrics + Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $600.00
Print or Print + Online

Object

The most currently accepted indication for cervical arthroplasty is 1- or 2-level degenerative disc disease (DDD) refractory to medical treatment. However, the randomized and controlled clinical trials by the US FDA investigational device exemption studies only compared cervical arthroplasty with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for 1-level disease. Theoretically, 2-level cervical spondylosis usually implicates more advanced degeneration, whereas the 1-level DDD can be caused by merely a soft-disc herniation. This study aimed to investigate the differences between 1- and 2-level cervical arthroplasty.

Methods

The authors analyzed data obtained in 87 consecutive patients who underwent 1- or 2-level cervical arthroplasty with Bryan disc. The patients were divided into the 1-level and the 2-level treatment groups. Clinical outcomes were measured using the visual analog scale (VAS) for the neck and arm pain and the Neck Disability Index (NDI), with a minimum follow-up of 30 months. Radiographic outcomes were evaluated on both radiographs and CT scans.

Results

The study analyzed 98 levels of Bryan cervical arthroplasty in 70 patients (80.5%) who completed the evaluations in a mean follow-up period of 46.21 ± 9.85 months. There were 22 females (31.4%) and 48 males (68.6%), whose mean age was 46.57 ± 10.07 years at the time of surgery. The 1-level group had 42 patients (60.0%), while the 2-level group had 28 patients (40.0%). Patients in the 1-level group were younger than those in the 2-level group (mean 45.00 vs 48.93 years, p = 0.111 [not significant]). Proportional sex compositions and perioperative prescription of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs were also similar in both groups (p = 0.227 and p = 1.000). The 2-level group had significantly greater EBL during surgery than the 1-level group (220.80 vs 111.89 ml, p = 0.024). Heterotopic ossification was identified more frequently in the 2-level group than the 1-level group (75.0% vs 40.5%, p = 0.009). Although most of the artificial discs remained mobile during the follow up, the 2-level group had fewer mobile discs (100% and 85.7%, p = 0.022) than the 1-level group. However, in both groups, the clinical outcomes measured by VAS for neck pain, VAS for arm pain, and NDI all significantly improved after surgery compared with that preoperatively, and there were no significant differences between the groups at any point of evaluation (that is, at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after surgery).

Conclusions

Clinical outcomes of 1- and 2-level cervical arthroplasty were similar at 46 months after surgery, and patients in both groups had significantly improved compared with preoperative status. However, there was a significantly higher rate of heterotopic ossification formation and less mobility of the Bryan disc in patients who underwent 2-level arthroplasty. Although mobility to date has been maintained in the vast majority (94.3%) of patients, the long-term effects of heterotopic ossification warrant further investigation.

Abbreviations used in this paper:ACDF = anterior cervical discectomy and fusion; DDD = degenerative disc disease; EBL = estimated blood loss; FDA-IDE = FDA investigational device exemption; HO = heterotopic ossification; NDI = Neck Disability Index; NSAID nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug; VAS = visual analog scale.

Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $369.00

JNS + Pediatrics + Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $600.00

Contributor Notes

* Drs. JC Wu and Huang contributed equally to this work.

Address correspondence to: Chin-Chu Ko, M.D., Department of Neurosurgery, Neurological Institute, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Room 509, 17F, No. 201, Shih-Pai Road, Sec. 2, Beitou, Taipei 11217, Taiwan. email: hansamu0627@gmail.com.

Please include this information when citing this paper: published online March 23, 2012; DOI: 10.3171/2012.2.SPINE111066.

  • 1

    Beaurain J, , Bernard P, , Dufour T, , Fuentes JM, , Hovorka I, & Huppert J, : Intermediate clinical and radiological results of cervical TDR (Mobi-C) with up to 2 years of follow-up. Eur Spine J 18:841850, 2009

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2

    Burkus JK, , Haid RW, , Traynelis VC, & Mummaneni PV: Long-term clinical and radiographic outcomes of cervical disc replacement with the Prestige disc: results from a prospective randomized controlled clinical trial. Clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 13:308318, 2010

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3

    Coric D, , Cassis J, , Carew JD, & Boltes MO: Prospective study of cervical arthroplasty in 98 patients involved in 1 of 3 separate investigational device exemption studies from a single investigational site with a minimum 2-year follow-up. Clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 13:715721, 2010

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4

    Coric D, , Nunley PD, , Guyer RD, , Musante D, , Carmody CN, & Gordon CR, : Prospective, randomized, multicenter study of cervical arthroplasty: 269 patients from the Kineflex|C artificial disc investigational device exemption study with a minimum 2-year follow-up. Clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 15:348358, 2011

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5

    Fraser JF, & Härtl R: Anterior approaches to fusion of the cervical spine: a metaanalysis of fusion rates. J Neurosurg Spine 6:298303, 2007

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6

    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 17:7985, 2004

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7

    Goffin J, , van Loon J, , Van Calenbergh F, & Lipscomb B: A clinical analysis of 4- and 6-year follow-up results after cervical disc replacement surgery using the Bryan Cervical Disc Prosthesis. Clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 12:261269, 2010

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8

    Heidecke V, , Burkert W, , Brucke M, & Rainov NG: Intervertebral disc replacement for cervical degenerative disease—clinical results and functional outcome at two years in patients implanted with the Bryan cervical disc prosthesis. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 150:453459, 2008

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9

    Heller JG, , Sasso RC, , Papadopoulos SM, , Anderson PA, , Fessler RG, & Hacker RJ, : Comparison of BRYAN cervical disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical decompression and fusion: clinical and radiographic results of a randomized, controlled, clinical trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34:101107, 2009

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10

    Hilibrand AS, , Balasubramanian K, , Eichenbaum M, , Thinnes JH, , Daffner S, & Berta S, : The effect of anterior cervical fusion on neck motion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31:16881692, 2006

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11

    Hilibrand AS, , Carlson GD, , Palumbo MA, , Jones PK, & Bohlman HH: Radiculopathy and myelopathy at segments adjacent to the site of a previous anterior cervical arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 81:519528, 1999

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12

    Leung C, , Casey AT, , Goffin J, , Kehr P, , Liebig K, & Lind B, : Clinical significance of heterotopic ossification in cervical disc replacement: a prospective multicenter clinical trial. Neurosurgery 57:759763, 2005

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13

    Matz PG, , Pritchard PR, & Hadley MN: Anterior cervical approach for the treatment of cervical myelopathy. Neurosurgery 60:1 Supp1 1 S64S70, 2007

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14

    McAfee PC, , Cunningham BW, , Devine J, , Williams E, & Yu-Yahiro J: Classification of heterotopic ossification (HO) in artificial disk replacement. J Spinal Disord Tech 16:384389, 2003

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15

    Mehren C, , Suchomel P, , Grochulla F, , Barsa P, , Sourkova P, & Hradil J, : Heterotopic ossification in total cervical artificial disc replacement. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31:28022806, 2006

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16

    Mummaneni PV, , Burkus JK, , Haid RW, , Traynelis VC, & Zdeblick TA: Clinical and radiographic analysis of cervical disc arthroplasty compared with allograft fusion: a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Neurosurg Spine 6:198209, 2007

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17

    Mummaneni PV, & Haid RW: The future in the care of the cervical spine: interbody fusion and arthroplasty. Invited submission from the Joint Section Meeting on Disorders of the Spine and Peripheral Nerves, March 2004. J Neurosurg Spine 1:155159, 2004

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18

    Mummaneni PV, , Robinson JC, & Haid RW Jr: Cervical arthroplasty with the PRESTIGE LP cervical disc. Neurosurgery 60:4 Suppl 2 310315, 2007

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19

    Murrey D, , Janssen M, , Delamarter R, , Goldstein J, , Zigler J, & Tay B, : Results of the prospective, randomized, controlled multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study of the ProDisc-C total disc replacement versus anterior discectomy and fusion for the treatment of 1-level symptomatic cervical disc disease. Spine J 9:275286, 2009

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20

    Smith HE, , Wimberley DW, & Vaccaro AR: Cervical arthroplasty: material properties. Neurosurg Focus 17:3 E3, 2004

  • 21

    Steinmetz MP, , Patel R, , Traynelis V, , Resnick DK, & Anderson PA: Cervical disc arthroplasty compared with fusion in a workers' compensation population. Neurosurgery 63:741747, 2008

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22

    Suchomel P, , Jurák L, , Benes V III, , Brabec R, , Bradác O, & Elgawhary S: Clinical results and development of heterotopic ossification in total cervical disc replacement during a 4-year follow-up. Eur Spine J 19:307315, 2010

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23

    Traynelis VC: Cervical arthroplasty. Clin Neurosurg 53:203207, 2006

  • 24

    Traynelis VC: Spinal arthroplasty. Neurosurg Focus 13:2 E10, 2002

  • 25

    Tu TH, , Wu JC, , Huang WC, , Guo WY, , Wu CL, & Shih YH, : Heterotopic ossification after cervical total disc replacement: determination by CT and effects on clinical outcomes. Clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 14:457465, 2011

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 26

    Tumialán LM, , Pan J, , Rodts GE, & Mummaneni PV: The safety and efficacy of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with polyetheretherketone spacer and recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein–2: a review of 200 patients. J Neurosurg Spine 8:529535, 2008

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 27

    Verlaan JJ, , Boswijk PF, , de Ru JA, , Dhert WJ, & Oner FC: Diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis of the cervical spine: an underestimated cause of dysphagia and airway obstruction. Spine J 11:10581067, 2011

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 28

    Wu JC, , Huang WC, & Mummaneni PV: Prestige cervical arthroplasty. Tech Orthop 25:108113, 2010

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 627 160 18
Full Text Views 147 18 2
PDF Downloads 154 11 2
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0