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.
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.
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).
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.
* 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: firstname.lastname@example.org.
Please include this information when citing this paper: published online March 23, 2012; DOI: 10.3171/2012.2.SPINE111066.
BurkusJKHaidRWTraynelisVCMummaneniPV: 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 Spine13:308–3182010
CoricDCassisJCarewJDBoltesMO: 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 Spine13:715–7212010
CoricDNunleyPDGuyerRDMusanteDCarmodyCNGordonCR: 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 Spine15:348–3582011
GoffinJvan LoonJVan CalenberghFLipscombB: 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 Spine12:261–2692010
HeideckeVBurkertWBruckeMRainovNG: 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)150:453–4592008
HellerJGSassoRCPapadopoulosSMAndersonPAFesslerRGHackerRJ: 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)34:101–1072009
MummaneniPVHaidRW: 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 Spine1:155–1592004
MurreyDJanssenMDelamarterRGoldsteinJZiglerJTayB: 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 J9:275–2862009
TumialánLMPanJRodtsGEMummaneniPV: 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 Spine8:529–5352008