Top

International Orthopaedics

Published in:

01-10-2018 | Original Paper

Clinical and radiological outcomes of cervical disc arthroplasty: ten year follow-up study

Authors: Qingpeng Song, Da He, Xiao Han, Ning Zhang, Jinchao Wang, Wei Tian

Published in: International Orthopaedics | Issue 10/2018

Abstract

Purpose

Previous studies have demonstrated that cervical disc arthroplasty has favourable short- and medium-term clinical and radiological outcomes. However, long-term follow-up outcomes have rarely been reported. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the ten year follow-up clinical and radiological outcomes in patients who underwent Bryan cervical disc arthroplasty.

Methods

Seventy-one patients who underwent single-level Bryan cervical disc arthroplasty with a minimum ten year follow-up were included in the study. Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score, neck disability index (NDI), and Odom’s criteria were used to evaluate clinical outcomes. X-ray, CT, and MRI were used to evaluate the radiological outcomes.

Results

At last follow-up, the JOA score and NDI improved significantly, and 65 patients (91.5%) had good or excellent outcomes according to Odom’s criteria. The range of motion (ROM) at operated level was 9.7° pre-operatively and maintained to 8.6° at last follow-up. The sagittal alignment of operated level was decreased from 2.1° pre-operatively to 1.2° at last follow-up (P < 0.01). The ROM and sagittal alignment of cervical spine had no significant change. At last follow-up, 16 patients (22.5%) developed segmental kyphosis, and 33 patients (46.5%) developed adjacent segment degeneration. Paravertebral ossification (PO) was observed in 66 patients (93.0%), and high-grade PO (grades III and IV) was observed in 25 patients (35.2%).

Conclusions

The clinical and radiological outcomes of Bryan cervical disc arthroplasty over ten years follow-up are satisfying. However, the occurrence of high-grade PO restricted the ROM of operated level.

Cloward RB (1958) The anterior approach for removal of ruptured cervical disks. J Neurosurg 15(6):602–617. https://doi.org/10.3171/jns.1958.15.6.0602 CrossRefPubMed

van Eck CF, Regan C, Donaldson WF, Kang JD, Lee JY (2014) The revision rate and occurrence of adjacent segment disease after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a study of 672 consecutive patients. Spine 39(26):2143–2147. https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0000000000000636 CrossRefPubMed

Kong L, Cao J, Wang L, Shen Y (2016) Prevalence of adjacent segment disease following cervical spine surgery: a PRISMA-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine 95(27):e4171. https://doi.org/10.1097/md.0000000000004171 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Lee JH, Park WM, Kim YH, Jahng TA (2016) A biomechanical analysis of an artificial disc with a shock-absorbing core property by using whole-cervical spine finite element analysis. Spine 41(15):E893–E901. https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0000000000001468 CrossRefPubMed

Shriver MF, Lubelski D, Sharma AM, Steinmetz MP, Benzel EC, Mroz TE (2016) Adjacent segment degeneration and disease following cervical arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Spine J 16(2):168–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2015.10.032 CrossRefPubMed

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(3):840–845 discussion 845-847CrossRef

Lei T, Liu Y, Wang H, Xu J, Ma Q, Wang L, Shen Y (2016) Clinical and radiological analysis of Bryan cervical disc arthroplasty: eight-year follow-up results compared with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Int Orthop 40(6):1197–1203. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-015-3098-7 CrossRefPubMed

Tian W, Yan K, Han X, Yu J, Jin P, Han X (2017) Comparison of the clinical and radiographic results between cervical artificial disk replacement and anterior cervical fusion: a 6-year prospective nonrandomized comparative study. Clin Spine Surg 30(5):E578–e586. https://doi.org/10.1097/bsd.0000000000000206 CrossRefPubMed

Tian W, Han X, Liu B, He D, Lv Y, Yue J (2017) Generation and development of paravertebral ossification in cervical artificial disk replacement: a detailed analytic report using coronal reconstruction CT. Clin Spine Surg 30(3):E179–e188. https://doi.org/10.1097/bsd.0000000000000044 CrossRefPubMed

10.

Fong SY, DuPlessis SJ, Casha S, Hurlbert RJ (2006) Design limitations of Bryan disc arthroplasty. Spine J 6(3):233–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2006.01.007 CrossRefPubMed

11.

Fukui M, Chiba K, Kawakami M, Kikuchi S, Konno S, Miyamoto M, Seichi A, Shimamura T, Shirado O, Taguchi T, Takahashi K, Takeshita K, Tani T, Toyama Y, Wada E, Yonenobu K, Tanaka T, Hirota Y (2007) An outcome measure for patients with cervical myelopathy: Japanese Orthopaedic Association Cervical Myelopathy Evaluation Questionnaire (JOACMEQ): part 1. J Orthop Sci 12(3):227–240. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00776-007-1118-1 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

Wu S, Ma C, Mai M, Li G (2010) Translation and validation study of Chinese versions of the neck disability index and the neck pain and disability scale. Spine 35(16):1575–1579. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181c6ea1b CrossRefPubMed

13.

Odom GL, Finney W, Woodhall B (1958) Cervical disk lesions. J Am Med Assoc 166(1):23–28CrossRef

14.

Walraevens J, Liu B, Meersschaert J, Demaerel P, Delye H, Depreitere B, Vander Sloten J, Goffin J (2009) Qualitative and quantitative assessment of degeneration of cervical intervertebral discs and facet joints. Eur Spine J 18(3):358–369. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-008-0820-9 CrossRefPubMed

15.

Miyazaki M, Hong SW, Yoon SH, Morishita Y, Wang JC (2008) Reliability of a magnetic resonance imaging-based grading system for cervical intervertebral disc degeneration. J Spinal Disord Tech 21(4):288–292. https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0b013e31813c0e59 CrossRefPubMed

16.

Quan GM, Vital JM, Hansen S, Pointillart V (2011) Eight-year clinical and radiological follow-up of the Bryan cervical disc arthroplasty. Spine 36(8):639–646. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181dc9b51 CrossRefPubMed

17.

Zhao Y, Zhang Y, Sun Y, Pan S, Zhou F, Liu Z (2016) Application of cervical arthroplasty with Bryan cervical disc: 10-year follow-up results in China. Spine 41(2):111–115. https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0000000000001145 CrossRefPubMed

18.

Dejaegher J, Walraevens J, van Loon J, Van Calenbergh F, Demaerel P, Goffin J (2017) 10-year follow-up after implantation of the Bryan cervical disc prosthesis. Eur Spine J 26(4):1191–1198. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4897-2 CrossRefPubMed

19.

Villavicencio AT, Babuska JM, Ashton A, Busch E, Roeca C, Nelson EL, Mason A, Burneikiene S (2011) Prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical study evaluating the correlation of clinical outcomes and cervical sagittal alignment. Neurosurgery 68(5):1309–1316; discussion 1316. https://doi.org/10.1227/NEU.0b013e31820b51f3 CrossRefPubMed

20.

Sasso RC, Metcalf NH, Hipp JA, Wharton ND, Anderson PA (2011) Sagittal alignment after Bryan cervical arthroplasty. Spine 36(13):991–996. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182076d70 CrossRefPubMed

21.

Sears WR, Duggal N, Sekhon LH, Williamson OD (2007) Segmental malalignment with the Bryan cervical disc prosthesis—contributing factors. J Spinal Disord Tech 20(2):111–117. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.bsd.0000211264.20873.78 CrossRefPubMed

22.

Tian W, Fan MX, Liu YJ, Han X, Yan K, Wang H, Lyu YW (2016) An analysis of paravertebral ossification in cervical artificial disc replacement: a novel classification based on computed tomography. Orthop Surg 8(4):440–446. https://doi.org/10.1111/os.12286 CrossRefPubMed

23.

Kong L, Ma Q, Meng F, Cao J, Yu K, Shen Y (2017) The prevalence of heterotopic ossification among patients after cervical artificial disc replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine 96(24):e7163. https://doi.org/10.1097/md.0000000000007163 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

24.

Park JH, Rhim SC, Roh SW (2013) Mid-term follow-up of clinical and radiologic outcomes in cervical total disk replacement (Mobi-C): incidence of heterotopic ossification and risk factors. J Spinal Disord Tech 26(3):141–145. https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0b013e31823ba071 CrossRefPubMed

25.

Yi S, Oh J, Choi G, Kim TY, Shin HC, Kim KN, Kim KS, Yoon DH (2014) The fate of heterotopic ossification associated with cervical artificial disc replacement. Spine 39(25):2078–2083. https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0000000000000640 CrossRefPubMed

Title: Clinical and radiological outcomes of cervical disc arthroplasty: ten year follow-up study
Authors: Qingpeng Song
Da He
Xiao Han
Ning Zhang
Jinchao Wang
Wei Tian
Publication date: 01-10-2018
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: International Orthopaedics / Issue 10/2018
Print ISSN: 0341-2695
Electronic ISSN: 1432-5195
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-018-3947-2

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Clinical and radiological outcomes of cervical disc arthroplasty: ten year follow-up study

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 10/2018

Correction to: Functional outcome following a locked fracture-dislocation of the calcaneus

Joint hyperlaxity prevents relapses in clubfeet treated by Ponseti method—preliminary results

Comparison of Dimeglio and Pirani score in predicting number of casts and need for tenotomy in clubfoot correction using the Ponseti method

Arthroscopic Bankart repair for the acute anterior shoulder dislocation: systematic review and meta-analysis

Comment on Cho et al.: Mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in old-aged patients demonstrates superior short-term clinical outcomes to open-wedge high tibial osteotomy in middle-aged patients with advanced isolated medial osteoarthritis

Three-in-one protocol reduces mortality of patients with haemodynamically unstable pelvic fractures—a five year multi-centred review in Hong Kong