Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

What are the associative factors of adjacent segment degeneration after anterior cervical spine surgery? Comparative study between anterior cervical fusion and arthroplasty with 5-year follow-up MRI and CT

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

It is well known that arthrodesis is associated with adjacent segment degeneration (ASD). However, previous studies were performed with simple radiography or CT. MRI is most sensitive in assessing the degenerative change of a disc, and this is the first study about ASD by radiography, CT and MRI. We sought to factors related to ASD at cervical spine by an MRI and CT, after anterior cervical spine surgery.

Materials and methods

This is a retrospective cross-sectional study of cervical disc herniation. Patients of cervical disc herniation with only radiculopathy were treated with either arthroplasty (22 patients) or ACDF with cage alone (21 patients). These patients were required to undergo MRI, CT and radiography preoperatively, as well as radiography follow-up for 3 months and 1 year, and we conducted a cross-sectional study by MRI, CT and radiography including clinical evaluations 5 years after. Clinical outcomes were assessed using VAS and NDI. The fusion rate and ASD rate, and radiologic parameters (cervical lordosis, operated segmental height, C2-7 ROM, operated segmental ROM, upper segmental ROM and lower segmental ROM) were measured.

Results

The study groups were demographically similar, and substantial improvements in VAS (for arm) and NDI (for neck) scores were noted, and there were no significant differences between groups. Fusion rates were 95.2 % in the fusion group and 4.5 % in the arthroplasty group. ASD rates of the fusion and arthroplasty groups were 42.9 and 50 %, respectively. Among the radiologic parameters, operated segmental height and operated segmental ROM significantly decreased, while the upper segmental ROM significantly increased in the fusion group. In a comparative study between patients with ASD and without ASD, the clinical results were found to be similar, although preexisting ASD and other segment degeneration were significantly higher in the ASD group. C2-7 ROM was significantly decreased in ASD group, and other radiologic parameters have no significant differences between groups.

Conclusion

The ASD rate of 46.5 % after ACDF or arthroplasty, and arthroplasty did not significantly lower the rate of ASD. ASD occurred in patients who had preexisting ASD and in patients who also had other segment degeneration. ASD may be associated with a natural history of cervical spondylosis rather than arthrodesis.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. 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 81:519–528

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Weinhoffer SL, Guyer RD, Herbert M, Griffith SL (1995) Intradiscal pressure measurements above an instrumented fusion. A cadaveric study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 20:526–531

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Lee CK, Langrana NA (1984) Lumbosacral spinal fusion. A biomechanical study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 9:574–581

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Bushell GR, Ghosh DP, Taylor TK, Sutherland JM, Braund KG (1978) The effect of spinal fusion on the collagen and proteoglycans of the canine intervertebral disc. J Surg Res 25:61–69

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Hilibrand AS, Robbins M (2004) Adjacent segment degeneration and adjacent segment disease: the consequences of spinal fusion? Spine J 4:190–194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bohlman HH, Emery SE, Goodfellow DB, Jones PK (1993) 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 75:1298–1307

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Goffin J, Geusens E, Vantomme N, Quintens E, Waerzeggers Y, Depreitere B, Van Calenbergh F, van Loon J (2004) Long-term follow-up after interbody fusion of the cervical spine. J Spinal Disord Tech 17:79–85

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Cherubino P, Benazzo F, Borromeo U, Perle S (1990) Degenerative arthritis of the adjacent spinal joints following anterior cervical spinal fusion: clinicoradiologic and statistical correlations. Ital J Orthop Traumatol 16:533–543

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Hunter LY, Braunstein EM, Bailey RW (1980) Radiographic changes following anterior cervical fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 5:399–401

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. McGrory BJ, Klassen RA (1994) Arthrodesis of the cervical spine for fractures and dislocations in children and adolescents. A long-term follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 76:1606–1616

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Burkus JK, Haid RW, Traynelis VC, Mummaneni PV (2010) Long-term clinical and radiographic outcomes of cervical disc replacement with the Prestige disc: results from a prospective randomized controlled clinical trial. J Neurosurg Spine 13:308–318

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Heller JG, Sasso RC, Papadopoulos SM, Anderson PA, Fessler RG, Hacker RJ, Coric D, Cauthen JC, Riew DK (2009) 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) 34:101–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Sasso RC, Anderson PA, Riew KD, Heller JG (2011) Results of cervical arthroplasty compared with anterior discectomy and fusion: four-year clinical outcomes in a prospective, randomized controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am 93:1684–1692

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Joo YH, Lee JW, Kwon KY, Rhee JJ, Lee HK (2010) Comparison of fusion with cage alone and plate instrumentation in two-level cervical degenerative disease. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 48:342–346

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Song KJ, Taghavi CE, Lee KB, Song JH, Eun JP (2009) The efficacy of plate construct augmentation versus cage alone in anterior cervical fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34:2886–2892

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Bridwell KH, Lenke LG, McEnery KW, Baldus C, Blanke K (1995) Anterior fresh frozen structural allografts in the thoracic and lumbar spine. Do they work if combined with posterior fusion and instrumentation in adult patients with kyphosis or anterior column defects? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 20:1410–1418

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Baba H, Furusawa N, Imura S, Kawahara N, Tsuchiya H, Tomita K (1993) Late radiographic findings after anterior cervical fusion for spondylotic myeloradiculopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 18:2167–2173

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Seo M, Choi D (2008) Adjacent segment disease after fusion for cervical spondylosis; myth or reality? Br J Neurosurg 22:195–199

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 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 (Phila Pa 1976) 27:2431–2434

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Matsunaga S, Kabayama S, Yamamoto T, Yone K, Sakou T, Nakanishi K (1999) Strain on intervertebral discs after anterior cervical decompression and fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 24:670–675

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. McCormick PC (2007) The adjacent segment. J Neurosurg Spine 6:1–4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Gore DR (2001) Roentgenographic findings in the cervical spine in asymptomatic persons: a ten-year follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 26:2463–2466

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Matsumoto M, Okada E, Ichihara D, Watanabe K, Chiba K, Toyama Y, Fujiwara H, Momoshima S, Nishiwaki Y, Iwanami A, Ikegami T, Takahata T, Hashimoto T (2010) Anterior cervical decompression and fusion accelerates adjacent segment degeneration: comparison with asymptomatic volunteers in a ten-year magnetic resonance imaging follow-up study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35:36–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Upadhyaya CD, Wu JC, Trost G, Haid RW, Traynelis VC, Tay B, Coric D, Mummaneni PV (2011) Analysis of the three United States Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption cervical arthroplasty trials. J Neurosurg Spine 16:216–228

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Nunley PD, Jawahar A, Kerr EJ 3rd, Gordon CJ, Cavanaugh DA, Birdsong EM, Stocks M, Danielson G (2012) Factors affecting the incidence of symptomatic adjacent level disease in cervical spine after total disc arthroplasty: 2–4 years follow-up of 3 prospective randomized trials. Spine 15:445–451

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Neal CJ, Rosner MK, Kuklo TR (2005) Magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of adjacent segments after disc arthroplasty. J Neurosurg Spine 3:342–347

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Antosh IJ, DeVine JG, Carpenter CT, Woebkenberg BJ, Yoest SM (2010) Magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of adjacent segments after cervical disc arthroplasty: magnet strength and its effect on image quality. Clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 13:722–726

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Sugawara T, Itoh Y, Hirano Y, Higashiyama N, Mizoi K (2009) Long term outcome and adjacent disc degeneration after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with titanium cylindrical cages. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 151:303–309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Hakalo J, Pezowicz C, Wronski J, Bedzinski R, Kasprowicz M (2008) Comparative biomechanical study of cervical spine stabilisation by cage alone, cage with plate, or plate-cage: a porcine model. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 16:9–13

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Yang JJ, Yu CH, Chang BS, Yeom JS, Lee JH, Lee CK (2011) Subsidence and nonunion after anterior cervical interbody fusion using a stand-alone polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cage. Clin Orthop Surg 3:16–23

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Fujibayashi S, Neo M, Nakamura T (2008) Stand-alone interbody cage versus anterior cervical plate for treatment of cervical disc herniation: sequential changes in cage subsidence. J Clin Neurosci 15:1017–1022

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Kolstad F, Nygaard OP, Andresen H, Leivseth G (2010) Anterior cervical arthrodesis using a “stand alone” cylindrical titanium cage: prospective analysis of radiographic parameters. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35:1545–1550

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Su Jin Lee, MS at Department of Neurosurgery, Gangnam Severance Hospital, for her large effort for this study.

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Neurosurgery, Spine and Spinal Cord Institute, Gangnam Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, 712, Eonjuro Gangnam-gu, Seoul, 135-720, Korea

    Jeong Yoon Park, Kyung Hyun Kim, Sung Uk Kuh, Dong Kyu Chin, Keun Su Kim & Yong Eun Cho

Authors
  1. Jeong Yoon Park
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kyung Hyun Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sung Uk Kuh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Dong Kyu Chin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Keun Su Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Yong Eun Cho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Keun Su Kim.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Park, J.Y., Kim, K.H., Kuh, S.U. et al. What are the associative factors of adjacent segment degeneration after anterior cervical spine surgery? Comparative study between anterior cervical fusion and arthroplasty with 5-year follow-up MRI and CT. Eur Spine J 22, 1078–1089 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-012-2613-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-012-2613-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation