Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
Published in: BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 1/2019

Open Access 01-12-2019 | Dysphagia | Research article

Radiological and clinical outcomes of cervical disc arthroplasty for the elderly: a comparison with young patients

Authors: Jau-Ching Wu, Hsuan-Kan Chang, Wen-Cheng Huang, Tsung-Hsi Tu, Li-Yu Fay, Chao-Hung Kuo, Chih-Chang Chang, Ching-Lan Wu, Huang-Chou Chang, Henrich Cheng

Published in: BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders | Issue 1/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

This study aimed to investigate whether cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) would be equally effective in elderly patients as in the young. The inclusion criteria of published clinical trials for CDA-enrolled patients covered the ages from 18 to 78 years. However, there was a paucity of data addressing the differences of outcomes between older and the younger patients.

Methods

A series of consecutive patients who underwent one- or two-level CDA were retrospectively reviewed. Patients at the two extreme ends of the age distribution (≥65 and ≤ 40 years) were selected for comparison. Clinical outcome parameters included visual analog scale (VAS) of neck and arm pain, neck disability index (NDI), and Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores. Radiographic outcomes included range of motion (ROM) at the indexed level and evaluation of heterotopic ossification (HO) by computed tomography (CT). Complication profiles were also investigated.

Results

There were 24 patients in the elderly group (≥65 years old) and 47 patients in the young group (≤40 years old) with an overall mean follow-up of 28.0 ± 21.97 months. The elderly group had more two-level CDA, and thus the mean operative time was longer (239 vs. 179 min, p < 0.05) than the young group. Both groups had similarly significant improvement in clinical outcomes at the final follow-up. All the replaced disc segments remained mobile on post-operative lateral flexion and extension radiographs. However, the elderly group had a slight decrease in mean ROM (− 0.32° ± 3.93°) at the index level after CDA when compared to that of pre-operation. In contrast, the young group had an increase in mean ROM (+ 0.68° ± 3.60°). The complication profiles were not different, though a trend toward dysphagia was noted in the elderly group (p = 0.073). The incidence or severity (grading) of HO was similar between the two groups.

Conclusions

During the follow-up of two years, CDA was equally effective for patients over 65 years old and those under 40 years in clinical improvement. Although the elderly group demonstrated a small reduction of mean ROM after CDA, in contrast to the young group which had a small increase, the segmental mobility was well preserved at every indexed level for each group.
Literature
1.
Jaul E, Barron J. Age-related diseases and clinical and public health implications for the 85 years old and over population. Front Public Health. 2017;5:335.CrossRef
2.
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. 2007;6(3):198–209.CrossRef
3.
Heller JG, Sasso RC, Papadopoulos SM, Anderson PA, Fessler RG, Hacker RJ, et al. 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). 2009;34(2):101–7.CrossRef
4.
Murrey D, Janssen M, Delamarter R, Goldstein J, Zigler J, Tay B, et al. 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. 2009;9(4):275–86.CrossRef
5.
Coric D, Nunley PD, Guyer RD, Musante D, Carmody CN, Gordon CR, et al. 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. 2011;15(4):348–58.CrossRef
6.
Phillips FM, Lee JY, Geisler FH, Cappuccino A, Chaput CD, DeVine JG, et al. 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). 2013;38(15):E907–18.CrossRef
7.
Davis RJ, Nunley PD, Kim KD, Hisey MS, Jackson RJ, Bae HW, et al. 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. 2015;22(1):15–25.CrossRef
8.
Gornet MF, Burkus JK, Shaffrey ME, Argires PJ, Nian H, Harrell 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. 2015;23(5):558–73.
9.
Janssen ME, Zigler JE, Spivak JM, Delamarter RB, Darden BV 2nd, Kopjar 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. 2015;97(21):1738–47.CrossRef
10.
Phillips FM, Geisler FH, Gilder KM, Reah C, Howell KM, McAfee 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). 2015;40(10):674–83.CrossRef
11.
Nunley PD, Coric D, Frank KA, Stone MB. Cervical Disc Arthroplasty: Current Evidence and Real-World Application. Neurosurgery. 2018;83(6):1087–106.
12.
Burkus JK, Traynelis VC, Haid RW Jr, Mummaneni PV. Clinical and radiographic analysis of an artificial cervical disc: 7-year follow-up from the Prestige prospective randomized controlled clinical trial: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine. 2014;21(4):516–28.CrossRef
13.
Davis RJ, Kim KD, Hisey MS, Hoffman GA, Bae HW, Gaede SE, et al. 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. 2013;19(5):532–45.CrossRef
14.
Upadhyaya CD, Wu JC, Trost G, Haid RW, Traynelis VC, Tay B, et al. Analysis of the three United States Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption cervical arthroplasty trials. J Neurosurg Spine. 2012;16(3):216–28.CrossRef
15.
Boakye M, Patil CG, Ho C, Lad SP. Cervical corpectomy: complications and outcomes. Neurosurgery. 2008;63(4 Suppl 2):295–301 discussion -2.PubMed
16.
Kang J, Shi C, Gu Y, Yang C, Gao R. Factors that may affect outcome in cervical artificial disc replacement: a systematic review. Eur Spine J. 2015;24(9):2023–32.CrossRef
17.
Cloward RB. The anterior approach for removal of ruptured cervical disks. J Neurosurg. 1958;15(6):602–17.CrossRef
18.
Tu TH, Wu JC, Huang WC, Wu CL, Ko CC, Cheng 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. 2012;16(6):601–9.CrossRef
19.
Wu JC, Huang WC, Tsai HW, Ko CC, Fay LY, Tu TH, et al. Differences between 1- and 2-level cervical arthroplasty: more heterotopic ossification in 2-level disc replacement: Clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine. 2012;16(6):594–600.CrossRef
20.
Fay LY, Huang WC, Tsai TY, Wu JC, Ko CC, Tu TH, et al. Differences between arthroplasty and anterior cervical fusion in two-level cervical degenerative disc disease. Eur Spine J. 2014;23(3):627–34.CrossRef
21.
Chang HK, Huang WC, Wu JC, Tu TH, Fay LY, Chang PY, et al. Cervical arthroplasty for traumatic disc herniation: an age- and sex-matched comparison with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2015;16:228.CrossRef
22.
Chang HK, Huang WC, Wu JC, Chang PY, Tu TH, Fay LY, et al. Should cervical disc arthroplasty be done on patients with increased intramedullary signal intensity on magnetic resonance imaging? World Neurosurg. 2016;89:489–96.CrossRef
23.
Chang PY, Chang HK, Wu JC, Huang WC, Fay LY, Tu TH, et al. Differences between C3-4 and other subaxial levels of cervical disc arthroplasty: more heterotopic ossification at the 5-year follow-up. J Neurosurg Spine. 2016;24(5):752–9.CrossRef
24.
Chang HK, Chang CC, Tu TH, Wu JC, Huang WC, Fay LY, et al. Can segmental mobility be increased by cervical arthroplasty? Neurosurg Focus. 2017;42(2):E3.CrossRef
25.
Hilibrand AS, Yoo JU, Carlson GD, Bohlman HH. The success of anterior cervical arthrodesis adjacent to a previous fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1997;22(14):1574–9.CrossRef
26.
McAfee PC, Cunningham BW, Devine J, Williams E, Yu-Yahiro J. Classification of heterotopic ossification (HO) in artificial disk replacement. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2003;16(4):384–9.CrossRef
27.
Lutz W, Sanderson W, Scherbov S. The coming acceleration of global population ageing. Nature. 2008;451(7179):716–9.CrossRef
28.
Fehlings MG, Tetreault L, Nater A, Choma T, Harrop J, Mroz T, et al. The aging of the global population: the changing epidemiology of disease and spinal disorders. Neurosurgery. 2015;77 Suppl 4:S1–5.CrossRef
29.
Marawar S, Girardi FP, Sama AA, Ma Y, Gaber-Baylis LK, Besculides MC, et al. National trends in anterior cervical fusion procedures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010;35(15):1454–9.CrossRef
30.
Hisey MS, Bae HW, Davis R, Gaede S, Hoffman G, Kim K, et al. 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. 2014;8.
31.
Gornet MF, Lanman TH, Burkus JK, Hodges SD, McConnell JR, Dryer RF, et al. 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. 2017;26(6):653–67.CrossRef
32.
Di Capua J, Somani S, Kim JS, Phan K, Lee NJ, Kothari P, et al. Elderly age as a risk factor for 30-day postoperative outcomes following elective anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Global Spine J. 2017;7(5):425–31.CrossRef
33.
Buerba RA, Giles E, Webb ML, Fu MC, Gvozdyev B, Grauer JN. Increased risk of complications after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion in the elderly: an analysis of 6253 patients in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014;39(25):2062–9.CrossRef
34.
Anderson PA, Nassr A, Currier BL, Sebastian AS, Arnold PM, Fehlings MG, et al. Evaluation of adverse events in Total disc replacement: a meta-analysis of FDA summary of safety and effectiveness data. Global Spine J. 2017;7(1 Suppl):76S–83S.CrossRef
35.
Chung WF, Liu SW, Huang LC, Chang HK, Wu JC, Chen LF, et al. Serious dysphagia following anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: long-term incidence in a national cohort. J Neurosurg Sci. 2017.
36.
Epstein NE, Hollingsworth R. C5 nerve root palsies following cervical spine surgery: a review. Surg Neurol Int. 2015;6(Suppl 4):S154–63.CrossRef
37.
Wu JC, Huang WC, Tsai TY, Fay LY, Ko CC, Tu TH, et al. Multilevel arthroplasty for cervical spondylosis: more heterotopic ossification at 3 years of follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012;37(20):E1251–9.CrossRef
38.
Wu JC, Huang WC, Tu TH, Tsai HW, Ko CC, Wu CL, et al. Differences between soft-disc herniation and spondylosis in cervical arthroplasty: CT-documented heterotopic ossification with minimum 2 years of follow-up. J Neurosurg Spine. 2012;16(2):163–71.CrossRef
39.
Fay LY, Huang WC, Wu JC, Chang HK, Tsai TY, Ko CC, et al. Arthroplasty for cervical spondylotic myelopathy: similar results to patients with only radiculopathy at 3 years' follow-up. J Neurosurg Spine. 2014;21(3):400–10.CrossRef
40.
Tu TH, Wu JC, Huang WC, Chang HK, Ko CC, Fay LY, et al. Postoperative nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs and the prevention of heterotopic ossification after cervical arthroplasty: analysis using CT and a minimum 2-year follow-up. J Neurosurg Spine. 2015;22(5):447–53.CrossRef
41.
Tu TH, Wu JC, Huang WC, Guo WY, Wu CL, Shih YH, et al. Heterotopic ossification after cervical total disc replacement: determination by CT and effects on clinical outcomes. J Neurosurg Spine. 2011;14(4):457–65.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Radiological and clinical outcomes of cervical disc arthroplasty for the elderly: a comparison with young patients
Authors
Jau-Ching Wu
Hsuan-Kan Chang
Wen-Cheng Huang
Tsung-Hsi Tu
Li-Yu Fay
Chao-Hung Kuo
Chih-Chang Chang
Ching-Lan Wu
Huang-Chou Chang
Henrich Cheng
Publication date
01-12-2019
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders / Issue 1/2019
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2474
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-019-2509-0

Other articles of this Issue 1/2019

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 1/2019 Go to the issue

Research article

Footprint coverage comparison between knotted and knotless techniques in a single-row rotator cuff repair: biomechanical analysis

Research article

Comparison of radiological changes after single- position versus dual- position for lateral interbody fusion and pedicle screw fixation

Research article

The role of wearable devices and objective gait analysis for the assessment and monitoring of patients with lumbar spinal stenosis: systematic review

Research article

Patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis perceive positive improvements regardless of change in the Cobb angle – Results from a randomized controlled trial comparing a 6-month Schroth intervention added to standard care and standard care alone. SOSORT 2018 Award winner

Research article

Multisite musculoskeletal pain in migrants from the Indian subcontinent to the UK: a cross-sectional survey

Research article

Preoperative opioid use is associated with worse patient outcomes after Total joint arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis