Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Clinical and radiological follow-up of single-level Prestige LP cervical disc replacement

  • Orthopaedic Surgery
  • Published:
Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

To evaluate the clinical outcomes and radiographic results of patients who underwent single-level cervical arthroplasty using the Prestige LP.

Method

Thirty-one patients with single-level cervical disc disease received the Prestige LP disc replacement from June 2008 to December 2009. The neck disability index (NDI), Japanese Orthopedic Association score (JOA) and visual analogue scale (VAS) were used to assessed clinical outcomes pre-operatively and post-operatively at 24 months. The overall cervical alignment (C2–7 Cobb angle), the functional segmental unit (FSU) curvature, the range of motion (ROM) of treated and adjacent levels were measured, and the evidence of heterotopic ossification (HO) was observed from static and dynamic radiographs.

Results

There was a statistically significant improvement in the NDI from 20.2 ± 7.5 to 6.4 ± 3.5 (P < 0.000), JOA from 12.8 ± 2.2 to 16.6 ± 0.6 (P < 0.000), the neck VAS score from 4.1 ± 2.5 to 1.4 ± 1.1 (P < 0.000), the arm VAS score from 4.6 ± 2.5 to 0.7 ± 1.1 (P < 0.000). The post-operative overall cervical alignment (9.3° ± 7.2°), ROM of treated level (7.6°) and adjacent level (upper level 9.4° ± 3.1°, lower level 9.1° ± 3.5°) are well maintained. The FSU were 0.2° ± 5.4° and 1.9° ± 5.5° at pre-operation and final follow-up with statistical significance (P = 0.011). Heterotopic ossification was evidenced in five operated segment (16 %).

Conclusions

The Prestige LP disc arthroplasty maintains favorable clinical outcomes, preserves the overall cervical alignment, FSU curvature, ROM of treated level and adjacent levels.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. 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(3):198–209. doi:10.3171/spi.2007.6.3.198

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 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(2):101–107. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e31818ee263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Murrey D, Janssen M, Delamarter R, Goldstein J, Zigler J, Tay B, Darden B (2009) 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 9(4):275–286. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2008.05.006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Reitman CA, Hipp JA, Nguyen L, Esses SI (2004) Changes in segmental intervertebral motion adjacent to cervical arthrodesis: a prospective study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 29(11):E221–226 00007632-200406010-00022 [pii]

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Kolstad F, Nygaard OP, Leivseth G (2007) Segmental motion adjacent to anterior cervical arthrodesis: a prospective study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32(5):512–517. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000256448.04035.bb

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 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(4):384–389

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Kaiser MG, Haid RW Jr, Subach BR, Barnes B, Rodts GE Jr (2002) Anterior cervical plating enhances arthrodesis after discectomy and fusion with cortical allograft. Neurosurgery 50(2):229–236 discussion 236–228

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Yue WM, Brodner W, Highland TR (2005) Long-term results after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with allograft and plating: a 5- to 11-year radiologic and clinical follow-up study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30(19):2138–2144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Fraser JF, Hartl R (2007) Anterior approaches to fusion of the cervical spine: a metaanalysis of fusion rates. J Neurosurg Spine 6(4):298–303. doi:10.3171/spi.2007.6.4.2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. DiAngelo DJ, Roberston JT, Metcalf NH, McVay BJ, Davis RC (2003) Biomechanical testing of an artificial cervical joint and an anterior cervical plate. J Spinal Disord Tech 16(4):314–323

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Daffner SD, Xin J, Taghavi CE, Hymanson HJ, Mudiyam C, Hongyu W, Wang JC (2009) Cervical segmental motion at levels adjacent to disc herniation as determined with kinetic magnetic resonance imaging. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34(22):2389–2394. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181b20054

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 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(4):519–528

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Cummins BH, Robertson JT, Gill SS (1998) Surgical experience with an implanted artificial cervical joint. J Neurosurg 88(6):943–948. doi:10.3171/jns.1998.88.6.0943

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Wigfield CC, Gill SS, Nelson RJ, Metcalf NH, Robertson JT (2002) The new Frenchay artificial cervical joint: results from a two-year pilot study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 27(22):2446–2452. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000032365.21711.5e

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 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(3):E10

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Porchet F, Metcalf NH (2004) Clinical outcomes with the Prestige II cervical disc: preliminary results from a prospective randomized clinical trial. Neurosurg Focus 17(3):E6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kim SW, Paik SH, Castro PA, Baek SW, Shin DJ, Kwak YH, Ju YS (2010) Analysis of factors that may influence range of motion after cervical disc arthroplasty. Spine J 10(8):683–688. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2010.04.027

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Katsuura A, Hukuda S, Saruhashi Y, Mori K (2001) Kyphotic malalignment after anterior cervical fusion is one of the factors promoting the degenerative process in adjacent intervertebral levels. Eur Spine J 10(4):320–324

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Sekhon L (2005) Sagittal alignment and the Bryan cervical artificial disk. Neurosurg Focus 18(3):e1–11. doi:10.3171/foc.2005.18.3.13 author reply 11 p following e11

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Shim CS, Lee SH, Park HJ, Kang HS, Hwang JH (2006) Early clinical and radiologic outcomes of cervical arthroplasty with Bryan Cervical Disc prosthesis. J Spinal Disord Tech 19(7):465–470. doi:10.1097/01.bsd.0000211235.76093.6b

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. 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. doi:10.1097/01.bsd.0000211264.20873.78

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Kim SW, Shin JH, Arbatin JJ, Park MS, Chung YK, McAfee PC (2008) Effects of a cervical disc prosthesis on maintaining sagittal alignment of the functional spinal unit and overall sagittal balance of the cervical spine. Eur Spine J 17(1):20–29. doi:10.1007/s00586-007-0459-y

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Rabin D, Bertagnoli R, Wharton N, Pickett GE, Duggal N (2009) Sagittal balance influences range of motion: an in vivo study with the ProDisc-C. Spine J 9(2):128–133. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2008.01.009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Sasso RC, Metcalf NH, Hipp JA, Wharton ND, Anderson PA (2011) Sagittal alignment after bryan cervical arthroplasty. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 36(13):991–996. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182076d70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Sekhon LH, Ball JR (2005) Artificial cervical disc replacement: principles, types and techniques. Neurol India 53(4):445–450

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Leung C, Casey AT, Goffin J, Kehr P, Liebig K, Lind B, Logroscino C, Pointillart V (2005) Clinical significance of heterotopic ossification in cervical disc replacement: a prospective multicenter clinical trial. Neurosurgery 57(4):759–763 discussion 759–763

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. 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 (Phila Pa 1976) 31(24):2802–2806. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000245852.70594.d5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Heidecke V, Burkert W, Brucke M, Rainov NG (2008) Intervertebral disc replacement for cervical degenerative disease–clinical results and functional outcome at two years in patients implanted with the Bryan cervical disc prosthesis. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 150(5):453–459. doi:10.1007/s00701-008-1552-7 discussion 459

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Beaurain J, Bernard P, Dufour T, Fuentes JM, Hovorka I, Huppert J, Steib JP, Vital JM, Aubourg L, Vila T (2009) Intermediate clinical and radiological results of cervical TDR (Mobi-C) with up to 2 years of follow-up. Eur Spine J 18(6):841–850. doi:10.1007/s00586-009-1017-6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Ryu KS, Park CK, Jun SC, Huh HY (2010) Radiological changes of the operated and adjacent segments following cervical arthroplasty after a minimum 24-month follow-up: comparison between the Bryan and Prodisc-C devices. J Neurosurg Spine 13(3):299–307. doi:10.3171/2010.3.spine09445

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopedics, Changzheng Hospital, The Second Military Medical University, 415 Fengyang Road, Huangpu District, 200003, Shanghai, People’s Republic of China

    Fei Chen, Jun Yang, Bin Ni, Qunfeng Guo, Xuhua Lu & Ning Xie

Authors
  1. Fei Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jun Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Bin Ni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Qunfeng Guo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Xuhua Lu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Ning Xie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bin Ni.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Chen, F., Yang, J., Ni, B. et al. Clinical and radiological follow-up of single-level Prestige LP cervical disc replacement. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 133, 473–480 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-013-1689-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-013-1689-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation