Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Clinical and radiological features of hybrid surgery in multilevel cervical degenerative disc disease

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

Abstract

Purpose

Although several studies have established the safety and efficacy of cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) as compared to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), few studies have investigated the role of hybrid surgery (HS) that incorporates ACDF and CDA techniques in multilevel cervical degenerative disc disease (MLCDDD).

Methods

This prospective study enrolled patients with MLCDDD who underwent HS. Twenty consecutive patients who underwent HS were compared with patients who underwent ACDF and CDA at the same level of surgery. Patients were followed up for more than 2 years. Intraoperative parameters, clinical features and outcome scores were recorded. Radiological assessments included overall range of motion (ROM), disc height (DHI), and changes in adjacent disc spaces.

Results

Duration of surgery was significantly shorter for ACDF compared with HS and CDA (P < 0.05). The VAS, SF-36, JOA, and NDI scores improved significantly after surgery in all the patients without significant differences among the groups. Cervical ROM increased significantly in CDA and HS groups as compared with ACDF-treated patients (P < 0.05). The mean DHI at the treated level was significantly restored after surgery in all the groups. The HS group returned to work faster (30 days) when compared with both ACDF (62 days) and CDA (65 days) (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

HS is an effective, reliable, and safe procedure for the treatment MLCDDD. Such a surgical construct is comparable to ACDF and CDA in terms of safety and feasibility. However, large, randomized controlled trials are warranted.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Schoenfeld AJ, George AA, Bader JO, Caram PM Jr (2012) Incidence and epidemiology of cervical radiculopathy in the United States military: 2000 to 2009. J Spinal Disord Tech 25:17–22. doi:10.1097/BSD.0b013e31820d77ea

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Lawrence BD, Hilibrand AS, Brodt ED, Dettori JR, Brodke DS (2012) Predicting the risk of adjacent segment pathology in the cervical spine: a systematic review. Spine 37:S52–S64. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e31826d60fb

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Wang L, Song YM, Liu LM, Liu H, Li T (2014) Clinical and radiographic outcomes of dynamic cervical implant replacement for treatment of single-level degenerative cervical disc disease: a 24-month follow-up. Eur Spine J 23:1680–1687. doi:10.1007/s00586-014-3180-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Pimenta L, McAfee PC, Cappuccino A, Cunningham BW, Diaz R, Coutinho E (2007) Superiority of multilevel cervical arthroplasty outcomes versus single-level outcomes: 229 consecutive PCM prostheses. Spine 32:1337–1344. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e318059af12

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Phillips FM, Tzermiadianos MN, Voronov LI, Havey RM, Carandang G, Dooris A, Patwardhan AG (2009) Effect of two-level total disc replacement on cervical spine kinematics. Spine 34:E794–E799. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181afe4bb

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Grasso G, Giambartino F, Tomasello G, Iacopino G (2014) Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with ROI-C peek cage: cervical alignment and patient outcomes. Eur Spine J 23(Suppl 6):650–657. doi:10.1007/s00586-014-3553-y

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. King JT Jr, Roberts MS (2002) Validity and reliability of the Short Form-36 in cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J Neurosurg 97:180–185

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Vernon H, Mior S (1991) The Neck Disability Index: a study of reliability and validity. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 14:409–415

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Bijur PE, Silver W, Gallagher EJ (2001) Reliability of the visual analog scale for measurement of acute pain. Acad Emerg Med 8:1153–1157

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Yonenobu K, Abumi K, Nagata K, Taketomi E, Ueyama K (2001) Interobserver and intraobserver reliability of the japanese orthopaedic association scoring system for evaluation of cervical compression myelopathy. Spine 26:1890–1894 (discussion 1895)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Lim MR, Girardi FP, Zhang K, Huang RC, Peterson MG, Cammisa FP Jr (2005) Measurement of total disc replacement radiographic range of motion: a comparison of two techniques. J Spinal Disord Tech 18:252–256

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 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 21:288–292. doi:10.1097/BSD.0b013e31813c0e59

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 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 20:1410–1418

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Pitzen TR, Chrobok J, Stulik J, Ruffing S, Drumm J, Sova L, Kucera R, Vyskocil T, Steudel WI (2009) Implant complications, fusion, loss of lordosis, and outcome after anterior cervical plating with dynamic or rigid plates: two-year results of a multi-centric, randomized, controlled study. Spine 34:641–646. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e318198ce10

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Sasso RC, Smucker JD, Hacker RJ, Heller JG (2007) Clinical outcomes of BRYAN cervical disc arthroplasty: a prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter trial with 24-month follow-up. J Spinal Disord Tech 20:481–491. doi:10.1097/BSD.0b013e3180310534

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Auerbach JD, Jones KJ, Fras CI, Balderston JR, Rushton SA, Chin KR (2008) The prevalence of indications and contraindications to cervical total disc replacement. Spine J 8:711–716. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2007.06.018

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Gallucci M, Limbucci N, Paonessa A, Splendiani A (2007) Degenerative disease of the spine. Neuroimaging Clin N Am 17:87–103. doi:10.1016/j.nic.2007.01.002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 81:519–528

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Pracyk JB, Traynelis VC (2005) Treatment of the painful motion segment: cervical arthroplasty. Spine 30:S23–S32

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 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. Orthopedics 34:889. doi:10.3928/01477447-20110922-24

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Shin DA, Yi S, Yoon DH, Kim KN, Shin HC (2009) Artificial disc replacement combined with fusion versus two-level fusion in cervical two-level disc disease. Spine 34:1153–1159. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e31819c9d39 (discussion 1160–1151)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Hey HW, Hong CC, Long AS, Hee HT (2013) Is hybrid surgery of the cervical spine a good balance between fusion and arthroplasty? Pilot results from a single surgeon series. Eur Spine J 22:116–122. doi:10.1007/s00586-012-2486-6

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Lee MJ, Dumonski M, Phillips FM, Voronov LI, Renner SM, Carandang G, Havey RM, Patwardhan AG (2011) Disc replacement adjacent to cervical fusion: a biomechanical comparison of hybrid construct versus two-level fusion. Spine 36:1932–1939. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181fc1aff

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Jia Z, Mo Z, Ding F, He Q, Fan Y, Ruan D (2014) Hybrid surgery for multilevel cervical degenerative disc diseases: a systematic review of biomechanical and clinical evidence. Eur Spine J 23:1619–1632. doi:10.1007/s00586-014-3389-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Zhao Y, Li Q, Mo Z, Sun Y, Fan Y (2013) Finite element analysis of cervical arthroplasty combined with fusion against 2-level fusion. J Spinal Disord Tech 26:347–350. doi:10.1097/BSD.0b013e318246b163

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Neurosurgical Clinic, Department of Experimental Biomedicine and Clinical Neurosciences, School of Medicine, University of Palermo, Via del Vespro 129, Palermo, 90100, Italy

    Giovanni Grasso

Authors
  1. Giovanni Grasso
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Giovanni Grasso.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

None.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Grasso, G. Clinical and radiological features of hybrid surgery in multilevel cervical degenerative disc disease. Eur Spine J 24 (Suppl 7), 842–848 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-4281-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-4281-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation