Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Dynamic cervical stabilization: a multicenter study

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

Abstract

Purpose

The dynamic cervical implant (DCI) is a novel motion-preserving concept for the treatment of degenerative cervical disorders. The aim of this prospective clinical study was to validate the concept and analyse clinical and radiological performance of the implant.

Materials/methods

One hundred seventy-five consecutive patients with degenerative cervical disorders, median age, 47 years, were treated with discectomy and DCI, and followed for 2 years. Clinical outcome was evaluated with the Neck Disability Index (NDI), the SF-12, and visual analogue scale (VAS) assessment of arm and neck pain. Range of motion (ROM) and cervical alignment were analysed using radiographic imaging.

Results

All clinical outcome measures—VAS neck and arm pain, NDI, and SF-12 mental and physical component summaries—improved significantly after surgery (each p < 0.001) and remained stable over the whole observation period. The ROM (flexion/extension) at the level treated with DCI was slightly reduced, but no significant changes could be verified at the adjacent levels. Six surgery or device-related adverse events were documented during the study.

Conclusions

Good clinical and excellent radiological outcomes demonstrate that DCI is a safe and efficient treatment option in patients with degenerative cervical disorders.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Denaro V, Di Martino A (2011) Cervical spine surgery: an historical perspective. Clin Orthop Relat Res 469:639–648

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Vanek P, Bradac O, DeLacy P, Saur K, Belsan T, Benes V (2012) Comparison of 3 fusion techniques in the treatment of the degenerative cervical spine disease. Is stand-alone autograft really the “gold standard?”: prospective study with 2-years follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 37:1645–1651

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Ryu WH, Kowalczyk I, Duggal N (2013) Long-term kinematic analysis of cervical spine after single-level implantation of Bryan cervical disc prosthesis. Spine J 13:628–634

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Dean CL, Gabriel JP, Cassinelli EH, Bolesta MJ, Bohlman HH (2009) Degenerative spondylolisthesis of the cervical spine: analysis of 58 patients treated with anterior cervical decompression and fusion. Spine J 9:439–446

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 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- to 4-years follow-up of 3 prospective randomized trials. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 37:445–451

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. McAfee PC, Reah C, Gilder K, Eisermann L, Cunningham B (2012) A meta-analysis of comparative outcomes following cervical arthroplasty or anterior cervical fusion: results from 4 prospective multicenter randomized clinical trials and up to 1226 patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 37:943–952

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bydon M, Xu R, Macki M, De la Garza-Ramos R, Sciubba DM, Wolinsky JP, Witham TF, Gokaslan ZL, Bydon A (2014) Adjacent segment disease after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion in a large series. Neurosurgery 74:139–146 (discussion 146)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Jawahar A, Cavanaugh DA, Kerr EJ 3rd, Birdsong EM, Nunley PD (2010) Total disc arthroplasty does not affect the incidence of adjacent segment degeneration in cervical spine: results of 93 patients in three prospective randomized clinical trials. Spine J 10:1043–1048

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Anderson PA, Sasso RC, Hipp J, Norvell DC, Raich A, Hashimoto R (2012) Kinematics of the cervical adjacent segments after disc arthroplasty compared with anterior discectomy and fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 37:S85–S95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Boselie TF, Willems PC, van Mameren H, de Bie RA, Benzel EC, van Santbrink H (2013) Arthroplasty versus fusion in single-level cervical degenerative disc disease: a cochrane review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 38:E1096–E1107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Sun Y, Zhao YB, Pan SF, Zhou FF, Chen ZQ, Liu ZJ (2012) Comparison of adjacent segment degeneration 5 years after single level cervical fusion and cervical arthroplasty: a retrospective controlled study. Chin Med J (Engl) 125:3939–3941

    Google Scholar 

  12. Zigler JE, Delamarter R, Murrey D, Spivak J, Janssen M (2013) ProDisc-C and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion as surgical treatment for single-level cervical symptomatic degenerative disc disease: five-year results of a Food and Drug Administration study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 38:203–209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Lee JY, Hohl JB, Fedorka CJ, Devin C, Brodke DS, Branch CL Jr, Vaccaro AR (2011) Surgeons agree to disagree on surgical options for degenerative conditions of the cervical and lumbar spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 36:E203–E212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Mo ZJ, Zhao YB, Wang LZ, Sun Y, Zhang M, Fan YB (2014) Biomechanical effects of cervical arthroplasty with U-shaped disc implant on segmental range of motion and loading of surrounding soft tissue. Eur Spine J 23:613–621

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Welke B, Hurschler C, Schwarze M, Packheiser A, Tak S, Richter B, Daentzer D (2011) Biomechanical comparison between fusion, TDR and dynamic stabilization. In: 6th German Spine Conference, Hamburg, Germany, 8th–11th December 2011. Eur Spine J 20:2017–2018

  16. Zhu R, Yang H, Wang Z, Wang G, Shen M, Yuan Q (2014) Comparisons of three anterior cervical surgeries in treating cervical spondylotic myelopathy. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 15:233

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Matgé G, Berthold C, Gunness VR, Hana A, Hertel F (2015) Stabilization with the dynamic cervical implant: a novel treatment approach following cervical discectomy and decompression. J Neurosurg Spine 22:237–245

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 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-months follow-up. Eur Spine J 23:1680–1687

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Cho SK, Riew KD (2013) Adjacent segment disease following cervical spine surgery. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 21:3–11

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Park JY, Kim KH, Kuh SU, Chin DK, Kim KS, Cho YE (2013) What are the associative factors of adjacent segment degeneration after anterior cervical spine surgery? Comparative study between anterior cervical fusion and arthroplasty with 5-years follow-up MRI and CT. Eur Spine J 22:1078–1089

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Herdmann J, Buddenberg P, Trautwein F, Rhee S, Piltz A, Floeth F (2012) Does maintenance of physiologic kinematics in the adjacent segment prevent adjacent segment degeneration following cervical dynamic stabilization? In: 7th German Spine Conference, Stuttgart, Germany, 6th–8th December 2012. Eur Spine J 21:2329

  22. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Anakwenze OA, Auerbach JD, Milby AH, Lonner BS, Balderston RA (2009) Sagittal cervical alignment after cervical disc arthroplasty and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: results of a prospective, randomized, controlled trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34:2001–2007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Guérin P, Obeid I, Gille O, Bourghli A, Luc S, Pointillart V, Vital JM (2012) Sagittal alignment after single cervical disc arthroplasty. J Spinal Disord Tech 25:10–16

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Tu TH, Wu JC, Huang WC, Wu CL, Ko CC, Cheng H (2012) The effects of carpentry on heterotopic ossification and mobility in cervical arthroplasty: determination by computed tomography with a minimum 2-year follow-up: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 16:601–609

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. National Neurosurgical Department, Centre Hospitalier de Luxembourg, 25 Rue de La Gare, Mamer, 8229, Luxembourg City, Luxembourg

    Guy Matgé

  2. Spine Unit and Center of Pain Management, St. Vinzenz Hospital, Düsseldorf, Germany

    Peter Buddenberg & Joerg Herdmann

  3. Department of Neurosurgery, Municipal Clinic of Görlitz, Görlitz, Germany

    Marcus Eif & Holger Schenke

Authors
  1. Guy Matgé
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Peter Buddenberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marcus Eif
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Holger Schenke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Joerg Herdmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Guy Matgé.

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

Matgé, G., Buddenberg, P., Eif, M. et al. Dynamic cervical stabilization: a multicenter study. Eur Spine J 24, 2841–2847 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-4218-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-4218-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation