Radiological and clinical outcomes of 3-level cervical disc arthroplasty

Restricted access

OBJECTIVE

One- and two-level cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) has been compared to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) in several large-scale, prospective, randomized trials that have demonstrated similar clinical outcomes. However, whether these results would be similar when treating 3-level disc herniation and/or spondylosis has remained unanswered. This study aimed to investigate the differences between 3-level CDA and ACDF.

METHODS

A series of 50 patients who underwent 3-level CDA at C3–7 was retrospectively reviewed and compared with another series of 50 patients (age- and sex-matched controls) who underwent ACDF at C3–7. Clinical outcomes were measured using the visual analog scale (VAS) for neck and arm pain, the modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association (mJOA) scale, and the Neck Disability Index (NDI). Radiological outcomes included range of motion (ROM) at the index levels. Every patient was evaluated by CT for the presence of fusion in the ACDF group. Also, complication profiles were investigated.

RESULTS

The demographics and levels of distribution in both groups were very similar. During the follow-up period of 24 months, clinical outcomes improved (overall and respectively in each group) for both the CDA and ACDF patients when compared with the patients’ preoperative condition. There were essentially few differences between the two groups in terms of neck and arm pain VAS scores, mJOA scores, and NDI scores preoperatively and at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively. After the 3-level surgery, the CDA group had an increased mean ROM of approximately 3.4°, at 25.2° ± 8.84°, compared to their preoperative ROM (21.8° ± 7.20°) (p = 0.001), whereas the ACDF group had little mobility (22.8° ± 5.90° before and 1.0° ± 1.28° after surgery; p < 0.001). The mean operative time, estimated blood loss, and complication profiles were similar for both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In this selectively matched retrospective study, clinical outcomes after 3-level CDA and ACDF were similar during the 2-year follow-up period. CDA not only successfully preserved but slightly increased the mobility at the 3 index levels. However, the safety and efficacy of 3-level CDA requires more long-term data for validatation.

ABBREVIATIONS ACDF = anterior cervical discectomy and fusion; ASD = adjacent-segment disease; CDA = cervical disc arthroplasty; IDE = investigational device exemption; mJOA = modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association; NDI = Neck Disability Index; OPLL = ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament; PRO = patient-reported outcome; ROM = range of motion; VAS = visual analog scale.
Article Information

Contributor Notes

Correspondence Jau-Ching Wu: Neurological Institute, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan. jauching@gmail.com.INCLUDE WHEN CITING Published online November 1, 2019; DOI: 10.3171/2019.8.SPINE19545.Disclosures The authors report no conflict of interest concerning the materials or methods used in this study or the findings specified in this paper.
Headings
References
  • 1

    Anderson KKArnold PM: Oropharyngeal dysphagia after anterior cervical spine surgery: a review. Global Spine J 3:2732862013

  • 2

    Bertagnoli RYue JJPfeiffer FFenk-Mayer ALawrence JPKershaw T: Early results after ProDisc-C cervical disc replacement. J Neurosurg Spine 2:4034102005

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3

    Chang HKChang CCTu THWu JCHuang WCFay LY: Can segmental mobility be increased by cervical arthroplasty? Neurosurg Focus 42(2):E32017

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4

    Chang HKHuang WCWu JCChang PYTu THFay LY: Should cervical disc arthroplasty be done on patients with increased intramedullary signal intensity on magnetic resonance imaging? World Neurosurg 89:4894962016

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5

    Chang HKHuang WCWu JCTu THFay LYChang PY: Cervical arthroplasty for traumatic disc herniation: an age- and sex-matched comparison with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 16:2282015

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6

    Chang PYChang HKWu JCHuang WCFay LYTu TH: Differences between C3–4 and other subaxial levels of cervical disc arthroplasty: more heterotopic ossification at the 5-year follow-up. J Neurosurg Spine 24:7527592016

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7

    Chang PYChang HKWu JCHuang WCFay LYTu TH: Is cervical disc arthroplasty good for congenital cervical stenosis? J Neurosurg Spine 26:5775852017

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8

    Chen JXu LJia YSSun QLi JYZheng CY: Cervical anterior hybrid technique with bi-level Bryan artificial disc replacement and adjacent segment fusion for cervical myelopathy over three consecutive segments. J Clin Neurosci 27:59622016

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9

    Cho BYLim JSim HBPark J: Biomechanical analysis of the range of motion after placement of a two-level cervical ProDisc-C versus hybrid construct. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35:176917762010

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10

    Cho SKLu YLee DH: Dysphagia following anterior cervical spinal surgery: a systematic review. Bone Joint J 95-B:8688732013

  • 11

    Chung WFLiu SWHuang LCChang HKWu JCChen LF: Serious dysphagia following anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: long-term incidence in a national cohort. J Neurosurg Sci [epub ahead of print] 2017

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12

    Cloward RB: The anterior approach for removal of ruptured cervical disks. J Neurosurg 15:6026171958

  • 13

    Coric DNunley PDGuyer RDMusante DCarmody CNGordon 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 15:3483582011

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14

    Davis RJKim KDHisey MSHoffman GABae HWGaede SE: Cervical total disc replacement with the Mobi-C cervical artificial disc compared with anterior discectomy and fusion for treatment of 2-level symptomatic degenerative disc disease: a prospective, randomized, controlled multicenter clinical trial: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 19:5325452013

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15

    Davis RJNunley PDKim KDHisey MSJackson RJBae HW: Two-level total disc replacement with Mobi-C cervical artificial disc versus anterior discectomy and fusion: a prospective, randomized, controlled multicenter clinical trial with 4-year follow-up results. J Neurosurg Spine 22:15252015

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16

    Fay LYHuang WCTsai TYWu JCKo CCTu TH: Differences between arthroplasty and anterior cervical fusion in two-level cervical degenerative disc disease. Eur Spine J 23:6276342014

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17

    Friesem TKhan SRajesh MBerg AReddy GBhatia C: Long term follow up of multi-level (three & four levels) cervical disc arthroplasty—results from a single centre. Spine J 17 (3 Suppl):S28S292017

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18

    Gornet MFBurkus JKShaffrey MEArgires PJNian HHarrell FE Jr: Cervical disc arthroplasty with PRESTIGE LP disc versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a prospective, multicenter investigational device exemption study. J Neurosurg Spine 23:5585732015

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19

    Gornet MFLanman THBurkus JKHodges SDMcConnell JRDryer RF: Cervical disc arthroplasty with the Prestige LP disc versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, at 2 levels: results of a prospective, multicenter randomized controlled clinical trial at 24 months. J Neurosurg Spine 26:6536672017

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20

    Heller JGSasso RCPapadopoulos SMAnderson PAFessler RGHacker 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) 34:1011072009

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21

    Hisey MSBae HWDavis RGaede SHoffman GKim K: Multi-center, prospective, randomized, controlled investigational device exemption clinical trial comparing Mobi-C Cervical Artificial Disc to anterior discectomy and fusion in the treatment of symptomatic degenerative disc disease in the cervical spine. Int J Spine Surg 8:82014

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22

    Janssen MEZigler JESpivak JMDelamarter RBDarden BV IIKopjar B: ProDisc-C total disc replacement versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for single-level symptomatic cervical disc disease: seven-year follow-up of the prospective randomized U.S. Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 97:173817472015

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23

    Joaquim AFRiew KD: Multilevel cervical arthroplasty: current evidence. A systematic review. Neurosurg Focus 42(2):E42017

  • 24

    Laxer EBDarden BVMurrey DBMilam RARhyne ALClaytor B: Adjacent segment disc pressures following two-level cervical disc replacement versus simulated anterior cervical fusion. Stud Health Technol Inform 123:4884922006

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 25

    Malham GMParker RMEllis NJChan PGVarma D: Cervical artificial disc replacement with ProDisc-C: clinical and radiographic outcomes with long-term follow-up. J Clin Neurosci 21:9499532014

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 26

    Mummaneni PVBurkus JKHaid RWTraynelis VCZdeblick TA: Clinical and radiographic analysis of cervical disc arthroplasty compared with allograft fusion: a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Neurosurg Spine 6:1982092007

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 27

    Murrey DJanssen MDelamarter RGoldstein JZigler JTay 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 9:2752862009

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 28

    Noordhoek IKoning MTVleggeert-Lankamp CLA: Evaluation of bony fusion after anterior cervical discectomy: a systematic literature review. Eur Spine J 28:3863992019

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 29

    Nunley PDCoric DFrank KAStone MB: Cervical disc arthroplasty: current evidence and real-world application. Neurosurgery 83:108711062018

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 30

    Pearce N: Analysis of matched case-control studies. BMJ 352:i9692016

  • 31

    Phillips FMGeisler FHGilder KMReah CHowell KMMcAfee PC: Long-term outcomes of the US FDA IDE prospective, randomized controlled clinical trial comparing PCM cervical disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 40:6746832015

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 32

    Phillips FMLee JYGeisler FHCappuccino AChaput CDDeVine JG: A prospective, randomized, controlled clinical investigation comparing PCM cervical disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. 2-year results from the US FDA IDE clinical trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 38:E907E9182013

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 33

    Tu THWu JCHuang WCWu CLKo CCCheng H: The effects of carpentry on heterotopic ossification and mobility in cervical arthroplasty: determination by computed tomography with a minimum 2-year follow-up: Clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 16:6016092012

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 34

    Vaccaro ABeutler WPeppelman WMarzluff JMHighsmith JMugglin A: Clinical outcomes with selectively constrained SECURE-C cervical disc arthroplasty: two-year results from a prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter investigational device exemption study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 38:222722392013

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 35

    Wu JCChang HKHuang WCChen YC: Risk factors of second surgery for adjacent segment disease following anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a 16-year cohort study. Int J Surg 68:48552019

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 36

    Wu JCHuang WCTsai HWKo CCFay LYTu TH: Differences between 1- and 2-level cervical arthroplasty: more heterotopic ossification in 2-level disc replacement: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 16:5946002012

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 37

    Wu JCHuang WCTsai TYFay LYKo CCTu TH: Multilevel arthroplasty for cervical spondylosis: more heterotopic ossification at 3 years of follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 37:E1251E12592012

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 38

    Wu JCLiu LWen-Cheng HChen YCKo CCWu CL: The incidence of adjacent segment disease requiring surgery after anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion: estimation using an 11-year comprehensive nationwide database in Taiwan. Neurosurgery 70:5946012012

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 39

    Wu TKWang BYMeng YDing CYang YLou JG: Multilevel cervical disc replacement versus multilevel anterior discectomy and fusion: a meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore) 96:e65032017

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
TrendMD
Metrics

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 188 188 188
Full Text Views 16 16 16
PDF Downloads 14 14 14
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0
PubMed
Google Scholar