Top

Published in:

01-06-2009 | Original Article

Intermediate clinical and radiological results of cervical TDR (Mobi-C^®) with up to 2 years of follow-up

Authors: J. Beaurain, P. Bernard, T. Dufour, J. M. Fuentes, I. Hovorka, J. Huppert, J. P. Steib, J. M. Vital, L. Aubourg, T. Vila

Published in: European Spine Journal | Issue 6/2009

Abstract

The interest in cervical total disc replacement (TDR) as an alternative to the so-far gold standard in the surgical treatment of degenerative disc disease (DDD), e.g anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), is growing very rapidly. Many authors have established the fact that ACDF may result in progressive degeneration in adjacent segments. On the contrary, but still theoretically, preservation of motion with TDR at the surgically treated level may potentially reduce the occurrence of adjacent-level degeneration (ALD). The authors report the intermediate results of an undergoing multicentre prospective study of TDR with Mobi-C^® prosthesis. The aim of the study was to assess the safety and efficacy of the device in the treatment of DDD and secondary to evaluate the radiological status of adjacent levels and the occurrence of ossifications, at 2-year follow-up (FU). 76 patients have performed their 2-year FU visit and have been analyzed clinically and radiologically. Clinical outcomes (NDI, VAS, SF-36) and ROM measurements were analyzed pre-operatively and at the different post-operative time-points. Complications and re-operations were also assessed. Occurrences of heterotopic ossifications (HOs) and of adjacent disc degeneration radiographic changes have been analyzed from 2-year FU X-rays. The mean NDI and VAS scores for arm and neck are reduced significantly at each post-operative time-point compared to pre-operative condition. Motion is preserved over the time at index levels (mean ROM = 9° at 2 years) and 85.5% of the segments are mobile at 2 years. HOs are responsible for the fusion of 6/76 levels at 2 years. However, presence of HO does not alter the clinical outcomes. The occurrence rate of radiological signs of ALD is very low at 2 years (9.1%). There has been no subsidence, no expulsion and no sub-luxation of the implant. Finally, after 2 years, 91% of the patients assume that they would undergo the procedure again. These intermediate results of TDR with Mobi-C^® are very encouraging and seem to confirm the efficacy and the safety of the device. Regarding the preservation of the status of the adjacent levels, the results of this unconstrained device are encouraging, but longer FU studies are needed to prove it.

Anderson P, Sasso RC, Riew KD (2007) Update on cervical artificial disk replacement. Instr Course Lect 56:237–245PubMed

Baba H, Furusawa N, Imura S, Kawahara N, Tsuchiya H, Tomita K (1993) Late radiographic findings after anterior cervical fusion for spondylotic myeloradiculopathy. Spine 18:2167–2173PubMedCrossRef

Beaurain J, Bernard P, Dufour T, Fuentes JM, Hovorka I, Huppert J, Steib JP, Vital JM (2008) Mobi-C. In : Yue JJ, Bertagnoli R, McAfee P, An HS (eds) Motion preservation surgery of the spine: advanced techniques and controversies. Part III, Chap 27, Elsevier, Philadelphia, pp 231–237

Bernard P, Vital JM, Dufour T, Beaurain J, Fuentes JM, Huppert J, Hovorka I (2006) A new cervical disc prosthesis: Mobi-C. Preliminary results of a prospective study. In: Szpalski M, Gunzburg R, Le Huec JC, Brayda-Bruno M (eds) Non-fusion technologies in spine surgery. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, pp 253–260

Bertagnoli R, Yue J, Pfeiffer F, Fenk-Mare A, Lawrence J, Kershaw T, Nanieva R (2005) Early results after Prodisc-C cervical disc replacement. J Neurosurg Spine 2:403–410PubMedCrossRef

Bryan V (2002) Cervical motion segment replacement. Eur Spine J 11:S92–S97. doi:10.1007/s00586-002-0389-7 PubMedCrossRef

Cummins BH, Robertson JT, Gill SS (1998) Surgical experience with an implanted artificial cervical joint. J Neurosurg 88(6):943–948PubMedCrossRef

Cappuccino A, Bellera F (2004) Clinical experience with the new PCM (Cervitech) Disc. Spine J 4:315S–321S. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2004.07.024 PubMedCrossRef

Cote P, Cassidy JD, Yong-Hing K, Sibley J, Loewy J (1997) Apophysial joint degeneration, disc degeneration, and sagittal curve of the cervical spine. Can they be measured reliably on radiographs? Spine 22:859–864. doi:10.1097/00007632-199704150-00007 PubMedCrossRef

10.

Dmitriev A, Cunningham B, Nianbin H, Sell G, Vigna F, McAfee P (2005) Adjacent level intradiscal pressure and segmental kinematics following a cervical total disc arthroplasty: an in vitro human cadaveric model. Spine 30:1165–1172. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000162441.23824.95 PubMedCrossRef

11.

Duggal N, Pickett G, Mitsis D, Keller J (2004) Early clinical and biomechanical results following cervical arthroplasty. Neurosurg Focus 17:E9. doi:10.3171/foc.2004.17.3.9 PubMedCrossRef

12.

Eck JC, Humphreys SC, Lim TH, Jeong ST, Kim JG, Hodges SD, An HS (2002) Biomechanical study on the effect of cervical spine fusion on adjacent-level intradiscal pressure and segmental motion. Spine 27:2431–2434. doi:10.1097/00007632-200211150-00003 PubMedCrossRef

13.

Fijn R, Koorevaar RT, Brouwers JR (2003) Prevention of heterotopic ossification after total hip replacement with NSAIDs. Pharm World Sci 25:138–145. doi:10.1023/A:1024830213832 PubMedCrossRef

14.

Fransen M, Neal B (2004) Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for preventing heterotopic bone formation after hip arthroplasty. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 3:CD001160PubMed

15.

Goffin J, Casey A, Kehr P, Liebig K, Lind B, Logroscino C, Pointillart V, Van Calenbergh F, van Loon J (2002) Preliminary clinical experience with the Bryan cervical disc prosthesis. Neurosurgery 51:840–845. doi:10.1097/00006123-200209000-00048 PubMedCrossRef

16.

Goffin J, Van Calenbergh F, Von Loon J, Casey A, Kehr P, Liebig K, Lind B, Logroscino C, Sgrambiglia R, Pointillart V (2003) Intermediate follow-up after treatment of degenerative disc disease with the Bryan cervical disc prosthesis: single-level and bi-level. Spine 28:2673–2678. doi:10.1097/01.BRS.0000099392.90849.AA PubMedCrossRef

17.

Gore D, Sepic S, Gardner G (1986) Roentgenographic findings of the cervical spine in asymptomatic people. Spine 11:521–524. doi:10.1097/00007632-198607000-00003 PubMedCrossRef

18.

Harrop JS, Youssef JA, Maltenfort M, Vorwald P, Jabbour P, Bono CM, Goldfarb N, Vaccaro AR, Hilibrand AS (2008) Lumbar adjacent segment degeneration and disease after arthrodesis and total disc arthroplasty. Spine 33:1701–1707PubMedCrossRef

19.

Hilibrand AS, Carlson GD, Palumbo MA, Jones PK, Bohlman HH (1999) Radiculopathy and myelopathy at segments adjacent to the site of a previous anterior cervical arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 81:519–528PubMed

20.

Hilibrand AS, Robbins M (2004) Adjacent segment degeneration and adjacent segment disease: the consequences of spinal fusion? Spine J 4:190S–194S. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2004.07.007 PubMedCrossRef

21.

Kettler A, Wilke H-J (2006) Review of existing grading systems for cervical or lumbar disc and facet joint degeneration. Eur Spine J 15:705–718. doi:10.1007/s00586-005-0954-y PubMedCrossRef

22.

Kim SH, Shin HC, Shin DA, Kim KN, Yoon DH (2007) Early clinical experience with the Mobi-C disc prosthesis. Yonsei Med J 48:457–464. doi:10.3349/ymj.2007.48.3.457 PubMedCrossRef

23.

McAfee PC, Cunningham BW, Dmitriev A, Hu N, Woo KS, Cappuccino A, Pimenta L (2003) Cervical disc replacement-porous coated motion prosthesis: a comparative biomechanical analysis showing the key role of the posterior longitudinal ligament. Spine 28:S176–S185. doi:10.1097/01.BRS.0000092219.28382.0C PubMedCrossRef

24.

McAfee PC, Cunningham BW, Devine J, Williams E, Yu-Yahiro J (2003) Classification of heterotopic ossification (HO) in artificial disk replacement. J Spinal Disord Tech 16:384–389PubMed

25.

Mehren C, Suchomel P, Grochulla F, Barsa P, Sourkova P, Hradil J, Korge A, Mayer HM (2006) Heterotopic Ossification in Total Cervical Artificial Disc Replacement. Spine 31:2802–2806. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000245852.70594.d5 PubMedCrossRef

26.

Mummaneni PV, Burkus JK, Haid RW, Traynelis VC, Zdeblick TA (2007) Clinical and radiographic analysis of cervical disc arthroplasty compared with allograft fusion: a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Neurosurg Spine 6:198–209. doi:10.3171/spi.2007.6.3.198 PubMedCrossRef

27.

Nabhan A, Ahlhelm F, Pitzen T, Steudel WI, Jung J, Shariat K, Steimer O, Bachelier F, Pape D (2007) Disc replacement using Pro-Disc C versus fusion: a prospective randomised and controlled radiographic and clinical study. Eur Spine J 16:423–430. doi:10.1007/s00586-006-0226-5 PubMedCrossRef

28.

Nabhan A, Ahlhelm F, Shariat K, Pitzen T, Steimer O, Steudel WI, Pape D (2007) The ProDisc-C prothesis clinical and radiological experience 1 year after surgery. Spine 32:1935–1941. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e31813162d8 PubMedCrossRef

29.

Park JH, Roh KH, Cho JY, Ra YS, Rhim SC, Noh SW (2008) Comparative analysis of cervical arthroplasty using Mobi-C^® and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion using the solis^®-cage. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 44:217–221. doi:10.3340/jkns.2008.44.4.217 PubMedCrossRef

30.

Phillips MF, Garfin SR (2005) Cervical disc replacement. Spine 30:S27–S33. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000175192.55139.69 PubMedCrossRef

31.

Pickett GE, Sekhon LH, Sears WR, Duggal N (2006) Complications with cervical arthroplasty. J Neurosurg Spine 4:98–105. doi:10.3171/spi.2006.4.2.98 PubMedCrossRef

32.

Porchet F, Metcalf N (2004) Clinical outcomes with the Prestige II Cervical Disc: preliminary results from a prospective randomized clinical trial. Neurosurg Focus 17:E6. doi:10.3171/foc.2004.17.3.6 PubMedCrossRef

33.

Puttlitz CM, Rousseau MA, Xu Z, Hu S, Tay BK, Lotz JC (2004) Intervertebral disc replacement maintains cervical spine kinetics. Spine 29:2809–2814. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000147739.42354.a9 PubMedCrossRef

34.

Robertson JT, Papadopoulos SM, Traneylis VC (2005) Assessment of adjacent-segment disease in patients treated with cervical fusion or arthroplasty: a prospective 2-year study. J Neurosurg Spine 3:417–423PubMedCrossRef

35.

Robertson JT, Metcalf NH (2004) Long-term outcome after implantation of the Prestige I disc in an end-stage indication: 4 year results from a pilot study. Neurosurg Focus 17:E10. doi:10.3171/foc.2004.17.3.10 PubMedCrossRef

36.

Sasso RC, Best NM (2008) Cervical Kinematics after fusion and Bryan Disc Arthroplasty. J Spinal Disord Tech 21:19–22. doi:10.1097/BSD.0b013e3180500778 PubMedCrossRef

37.

Sekhon L (2004) Cervical arthroplasty in the treatment of spondylotic myelopathy: 18-month results. Neurosurg Focus 17(3):E8. doi:10.3171/foc.2004.17.3.8 PubMedCrossRef

38.

Sola S, Hebecker R, Knoop M, Mann S (2005) Bryan cervical disc prosthesis—three years follow-up. Eur Spine J 14(Suppl 1):38

39.

Vital JM, Pointillart V, Gille O, Aurouer N (2007) Les prothèses cervicales constituent-elles un réel progrès dans la pathologie dégénérative? e-mémoires de l’Académie Nationale de Chirurgie 6(3):45–50

40.

Wigfield C, Gill S, Nelson R, Metcalf N, Robertson J (2002) The new Frenchay artificial cervical joint: results from a two-year pilot study. Spine 27:2446–2452. doi:10.1097/00007632-200211150-00006 PubMedCrossRef

41.

Wigfield C, Gill S, Nelson R, Langdon I, Metcalf N, Robertson J (2002) Influence of an artificial cervical joint compared with fusion on adjacent-level motion in the treatment of degenerative cervical disc disease. J Neurosurg 96(Suppl 1):17–21PubMed

Title: Intermediate clinical and radiological results of cervical TDR (Mobi-C®) with up to 2 years of follow-up
Authors: J. Beaurain
P. Bernard
T. Dufour
J. M. Fuentes
I. Hovorka
J. Huppert
J. P. Steib
J. M. Vital
L. Aubourg
T. Vila
Publication date: 01-06-2009
Publisher: Springer-Verlag
Published in: European Spine Journal / Issue 6/2009
Print ISSN: 0940-6719
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0932
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-009-1017-6

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Intermediate clinical and radiological results of cervical TDR (Mobi-C^®) with up to 2 years of follow-up

Abstract

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 6/2009

Anterior cervical pedicle screw and plate fixation using fluoroscope-assisted pedicle axis view imaging: a preliminary report of a new cervical reconstruction technique

SWISSspine: a nationwide registry for health technology assessment of lumbar disc prostheses

Sleep apnea in rheumatoid arthritis patients with occipitocervical lesions: the prevalence and associated radiographic features

Letter to the Editor concerning “A less invasive surgical approach in the lumbar lateral recess stenosis: direct approach to the medial wall of the pedicle” (A. Colak et al., Eur Spine J (2008) 17:1745–1751)

Answer to the Letter to the Editor of Prof. H.V. Crock concerning “A less invasive surgical approach in the lumbar lateral recess stenosis: direct approach to the medial wall of the pedicle” (Colak A et al (2008) Eur Spine J 17:1745–1751)

The relationship between the type of destructive spondyloarthropathy and its 10 years ago cervical spine alignment