Prospective randomized study of cervical arthroplasty and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with long-term follow-up: results in 74 patients from a single site

Presented at the 2012 Joint Spine Section Meeting 

Restricted access

Object

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the long-term results of cervical total disc replacement (TDR) and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) in the treatment of single-level cervical radiculopathy.

Methods

The results of 2 separate prospective, randomized, US FDA Investigational Device Exemption pivotal trials (Bryan Disc and Kineflex|C) from a single investigational site were combined to evaluate outcomes at long-term follow-up. The primary clinical outcome measures included the Neck Disability Index (NDI), visual analog scale (VAS), and neurological examination. Patients were randomized to receive cervical TDR in 2 separate prospective, randomized studies using the Bryan Disc or Kineflex|C cervical artificial disc compared with ACDF using structural allograft and an anterior plate. Patients were evaluated preoperatively; at 6 weeks; at 3, 6, and 12 months; and then yearly for a minimum of 48 months. Plain radiographs were obtained at each study visit.

Results

A total of 74 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to either the cervical TDR (n = 41) or ACDF (n = 33) group. A total of 63 patients (86%) completed a minimum of 4 years follow-up. Average follow-up was 6 years (72 months) with a range from 48 to 108 months. In both the cervical TDR and ACDF groups, mean NDI scores improved significantly by 6 weeks after surgery and remained significantly improved throughout the minimum 48-month follow-up (p < 0.001). Similarly, the median VAS pain scores improved significantly by 6 weeks and remained significantly improved throughout the minimum 48-month follow-up (p < 0.001). There were no significant differences between groups in mean NDI or median VAS scores. The range of motion (ROM) in the cervical TDR group remained significantly greater than the preoperative mean, whereas the ROM in the ACDF group was significantly reduced from the preoperative mean. There was significantly greater ROM in the cervical TDR group compared with the ACDF group. There were 3 reoperations (7.3%) at index or adjacent levels in the cervical TDR group; all were cervical laminoforaminotomies. There were 2 adjacent-level reoperations in the cervical TDR group (4.9%). There was 1 reoperation (3.0%) in the ACDF group at an index or adjacent level (a second ACDF at the adjacent level). There was no statistically significant difference in overall reoperation rate or adjacent-level reoperation rate between groups.

Conclusions

Both cervical TDR and ACDF groups showed excellent clinical outcomes that were maintained over long-term follow-up. Both groups showed low index-level and adjacent-level reoperation rates. Both cervical TDR and ACDF appear to be viable options for the treatment of single-level cervical radiculopathy.

Article Information

Address correspondence to: Dom Coric, M.D., Carolina Neurosurgery and Spine Associates, 225 Baldwin Avenue, Charlotte, North Carolina 28207. email: dom@cnsa.com.

Please include this information when citing this paper: published online November 9, 2012; DOI: 10.3171/2012.9.SPINE12555.

© AANS, except where prohibited by US copyright law.

Headings

Figures

  • View in gallery

    Anteroposterior (A), extension (B), and flexion (C) plain radiographs showing the Bryan Disc.

  • View in gallery

    Anteroposterior (A), extension (B), and flexion (C) plain radiographs showing the Kineflex|C Disc.

  • View in gallery

    Line graph showing the mean NDI scores in the cervical TDR (cTDR) and ACDF groups over time.

  • View in gallery

    Line graph showing median VAS scores in the cervical TDR and ACDF groups over time.

References

1

Adamson TE: Microendoscopic posterior cervical laminoforaminotomy for unilateral radiculopathy: results of a new technique in 100 cases. J Neurosurg 95:1 Suppl51572001

2

Aronson NFiltzer DLBagan M: Anterior cervical fusion by the Smith-Robinson approach. J Neurosurg 29:3964041968

3

Baba HFurusawa NImura SKawahara NTsuchiya HTomita K: Late radiographic findings after anterior cervical fusion for spondylotic myeloradiculopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 18:216721731993

4

Bailey RWBadgley CE: Stabilization of the cervical spine by anterior fusion. J Bone Joint Surg Am 42:5655941960

5

Bartels RDonk R: Fusion around cervical disc prosthesis: case report. Neurosurgery 57:E1942005

6

Bartels RHDonk RVerbeek AL: No justification for cervical disk prostheses in clinical practice: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Neurosurgery 66:115311602010

7

Beaurain JBernard PDufour TFuentes JMHovorka IHuppert J: Intermediate clinical and radiological results of cervical TDR (Mobi-C) with up to 2 years of follow-up. Eur Spine J 18:8418502009

8

Berry MRPeterson BGAlander DH: A granulomatous mass surrounding a Maverick total disc replacement causing iliac vein occlusion and spinal stenosis: a case report. J Bone Joint Surg Am 92:124212452010

9

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

10

Bohlman HHEmery SEGoodfellow DBJones PK: 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 75:129813071993

11

Burkus JKHaid RWTraynelis VCMummaneni PV: Longterm 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 13:3083182010

12

Cavanaugh DANunley PDKerr EJ IIIWerner DJJawahar A: Delayed hyper-reactivity to metal ions after cervical disc arthroplasty: a case report and literature review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34:E262E2652009

13

Chang UKKim DHLee MCWillenberg RKim SHLim J: Changes in adjacent-level disc pressure and facet joint force after cervical arthroplasty compared with cervical discectomy and fusion. J Neurosurg Spine 7:33392007

14

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

15

Coric DAdamson T: Minimally invasive cervical microendoscopic laminoforaminotomy. Neurosurg Focus 25:2E22008

16

Coric DBranch CL JrJenkins JD: Revision of anterior cervical pseudoarthrosis with anterior allograft fusion and plating. J Neurosurg 86:9699741997

17

Coric DCassis JCarew JBoltes 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 minimum 2-year follow-up. Clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 13:7157212010

18

Coric DFinger FBoltes P: The Bryan Cervical Disc prospective, randomized, controlled study: early clinical results from a single investigational site. J Neurosurg Spine 41:31352006

19

Coric DNunley PGuyer RDMusante DCarmody CGordon C: Prospective, randomized, multicenter study of cervical arthroplasty: 269 patients from the Kineflex|C artificial disc investigational device exemption study with minimum 2-year follow-up. Clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 15:3483582011. (Erratum in J Neurosurg Spine 16:322 2012)

20

Cummins BRobertson JGill S: Surgical experience with an implanted artificial cervical joint. J Neurosurg 88:9439481998

21

DiAngelo DJRoberston JTMetcalf NHMcVay BJDavis RC: Biomechanical testing of an artificial cervical joint and an anterior cervical plate. J Spinal Disord Tech 16:3143232003

22

Dmitriev AECunningham BWHu NSell GVigna FMcAfee PC: Adjacent level intradiscal pressure and segmental kinematics following a cervical total disc arthroplasty: an in vitro human cadaveric model. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30:116511722005

23

Eck JCHumphreys SCLim THJeong STKim JGHodges SD: Biomechanical study on the effect of cervical spine fusion on adjacent-level intradiscal pressure and segmental motion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 27:243124342002

24

Emery SEBohlman HHBolesta MJJones PK: Anterior cervical decompression and arthrodesis for the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Two to seventeen-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 80:9419511998

25

Fountas KNKapsalaki EZNikolakakos LGSmisson HFJohnston KWGrigorian AA: Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion associated complications. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32:231023172007

26

Fraser JFHärtl R: Anterior approaches to fusion of the cervical spine: a metaanalysis of fusion rates. J Neurosurg Spine 6:2983032007

27

Garrido BJTaha TASasso RC: Clinical outcomes of Bryan cervical disc arthroplasty a prospective, randomized, controlled, single site trial with 48-month follow-up. J Spinal Disord Tech 23:3673712010

28

Goffin JCasey AKehr PLiebig KLind BLogroscino C: Preliminary clinical experience with the Bryan cervical disc prosthesis. Neurosurgery 51:8408472002

29

Goffin JGeusens EVantomme NQuintens EWaerzeggers YDepreitere B: Long-term follow-up after interbody fusion of the cervical spine. J Spinal Disord Tech 17:79852004

30

Goffin JVan Calenbergh Fvan Loon JCasey AKehr PLiebig KE: Intermediate follow-up after treatment of degenerative disc disease with the Bryan Cervical Disc Prosthesis: single-level and bi-level. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 28:267326782003

31

Gore DRSepic SB: Anterior cervical fusion for degenerated or protruded discs. A review of one hundred forty-six patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 9:6676711984

32

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

33

Hilibrand ARobbins M: Adjacent segment degeneration and adjacent segment disease: the consequences of spinal fusion?. Spine J 4:6 Suppl190S194S2004

34

Hilibrand ASCarlson GDPalumbo MAJones PKBohlman HH: Radiculopathy and myelopathy at segments adjacent to the site of a previous anterior cervical arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 81:5195281999

35

Hunter LYBraunstein EMBailey RW: Radiographic changes following anterior cervical fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 5:3994011980

36

Ishihara HKanamori MKawaguchi YNakamura HKimura T: Adjacent segment disease after anterior cervical interbody fusion. Spine J 4:6246282004

37

Jawahar ACavanaugh DAKerr EJ IIIBirdsong EMNunley PD: Total disc arthroplasty does not affect the incidence of adjacent segment degeneration in cervical spine: results of 93 patients in three prospective randomized clinical trials. Spine J 10:104310482010

38

Kim SWLimson MAKim SBArbatin JJChang KYPark MS: Comparison of radiographic changes after ACDF versus Bryan disc arthroplasty in single and bi-level cases. Eur Spine J 18:2182312009

39

Kowalczyk ILazaro BCFink MRabin DDuggal N: Analysis of in vivo kinematics of 3 different cervical devices: Bryan disc, ProDisc-C, and Prestige LP disc. Clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 15:6306352011

40

Kulkarni VRajshekhar VRaghuram L: Accelerated spondylotic changes adjacent to the fused segment following central cervical corpectomy: magnetic resonance imaging study evidence. J Neurosurg 100:1 Suppl Spine262004

41

Lee SEChung CKJahng TA: Early development and progression of heterotopic ossification in cervical total disc replacement. Clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 16:31362012

42

Leung CCasey ATGoffin JKehr PLiebig KLind B: Clinical significance of heterotopic ossification in cervical disc replacement: a prospective multicenter clinical trial. Neurosurgery 57:7597632005

43

Matsunaga SKabayama SYamamoto TYone KSakou TNakanishi K: Strain on intervertebral discs after anterior cervical decompression and fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 24:6706751999

44

McAfee PCCunningham BWDevine JWilliams EYu-Yahiro J: Classification of heterotopic ossification (HO) in artificial disk replacement. J Spinal Disord Tech 16:3843892003

45

Mehren CSuchomel PGrochulla FBarsa PSourkova PHradil J: Heterotopic ossification in total cervical artificial disc replacement. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31:280228062006

46

Mummaneni PBurkus JHaid RTraynelis VZdeblick T: Clinical and radiographic analysis of cervical disc arthroplasty compared with allograft fusion: a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Neurosurg Spine 6:1982002007

47

Mummaneni PHaid R: The future in the care of the cervical spine: interbody fusion and arthroplasty. J Neurosurg Spine 2:1551592004

48

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

49

Park JBCho YSRiew KD: Development of adjacent-level ossification in patients with an anterior cervical plate. J Bone Joint Surg Am 87:5585632005

50

Parkinson JFSekhon LHRiew KD: Cervical arthroplasty complicated by delayed spontaneous fusion. Case report. J Neurosurg Spine 2:3773802005

51

Pickett GESekhon LHSears WRDuggal N: Complications with cervical arthroplasty. J Neurosurg Spine 4:981052006

52

Pospiech JStolke DWilke HClaes L: Intradiscal pressure recordings in the cervical spine. Neurosurgery 44:3793851999

53

Puttlitz CMRousseau MAXu ZHu STay BKLotz JC: Intervertebral disc replacement maintains cervical spine kinetics. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 29:280928142004

54

Rabin DBertagnoli RWharton NPickett GEDuggal N: Sagittal balance influences range of motion: an in vivo study with the ProDisc-C. Spine J 9:1281332009

55

Reitman CAHipp JANguyen LEsses SI: Changes in segmental intervertebral motion adjacent to cervical arthrodesis: a prospective study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 29:E221E2262004

56

Robertson JTPapadopoulos SMTraynelis VC: Assessment of adjacent-segment disease in patients treated with cervical fusion or arthroplasty: a prospective 2-year study. J Neurosurg Spine 3:4174232005

57

Sears WRDuggal NSekhon LHWilliamson OD: Segmental malalignment with the Bryan cervical disc prosthesis— contributing factors. J Spinal Disord Tech 20:1111172007

58

Sekhon LHSSears WDuggal N: Cervical arthroplasty after previous surgery: results of treating 24 discs in 15 patients. J Neurosurg Spine 3:3353412005

59

Smith GWRobinson RA: The treatment of certain cervicalspine disorders by anterior removal of the intervertebral disc and interbody fusion. J Bone Joint Surg Am 40-A:6076241958

60

Suchomel PJurák LBenes V IIIBrabec RBradác OElgawhary S: Clinical results and development of heterotopic ossification in total cervical disc replacement during a 4-year follow-up. Eur Spine J 19:3073152010

61

Tu THWu JCFay LYKo CCHuang WCCheng H: Vertebral body split fracture after a single-level cervical total disc replacement. Case report. J Neurosurg Spine 16:2312352012

62

Upadhyaya CDWu JCTrost GHaid RWTraynelis VCTay B: Analysis of the three United States Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption cervical arthroplasty trials. Clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 16:2162282012

63

Wang JCMcDonough PWEndow KKanim LEDelamarter RB: The effect of cervical plating on single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. J Spinal Disord 12:4674711999

64

Weinhoffer SLGuyer RDHerbert MGriffith SL: Intradiscal pressure measurements above an instrumented fusion. A cadaveric study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 20:5265311995

65

Wigfield CGill SNelson RLangdon IMetcalf NRobertson J: Influence of an artificial cervical joint compared with fusion on adjacent-level motion in the treatment of degenerative cervical disc disease. J Neurosurg 96:1 Suppl17212002

66

Wigfield CCSkrzypiec DJackowski AAdams MA: Internal stress distribution in cervical intervertebral discs: the influence of an artificial cervical joint and simulated anterior interbody fusion. J Spinal Disord Tech 16:4414492003

67

Yue WMBrodner WHighland TR: Long-term results after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with allograft and plating: a 5- to 11-year radiologic and clinical follow-up study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30:213821442005

68

Zechmeister IWinkler RMad P: Artificial total disc replacement versus fusion for the cervical spine: a systematic review. Eur Spine J 20:1771842011

TrendMD

Metrics

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 65 65 23
Full Text Views 80 80 21
PDF Downloads 113 113 17
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0

PubMed

Google Scholar