Advertisement

European Spine Journal

, Volume 23, Issue 3, pp 627–634 | Cite as

Differences between arthroplasty and anterior cervical fusion in two-level cervical degenerative disc disease

  • Li-Yu Fay
  • Wen-Cheng Huang
  • Tzu-Yun Tsai
  • Jau-Ching WuEmail author
  • Chin-Chu Ko
  • Tsung-Hsi Tu
  • Ching-Lan Wu
  • Henrich Cheng
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

Although arthroplasty is an accepted option for two-level disease, there is a paucity of data regarding outcomes of two-level cervical arthroplasty. The current study was designed to determine differences between two-level cervical arthroplasty and anterior fusion.

Methods

Seventy-seven consecutive patients who underwent two-level anterior cervical operations for degenerative disc disease were divided into the arthroplasty (37 patients) and fusion (40 patients) groups. Clinical outcomes were measured by Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) of neck and arm pain, Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) scores, and Neck Disability Index (NDI). Every patient was evaluated by radiography and computed tomography for fusion or detection of heterotopic ossification.

Results

Thirty-seven patients (with 74 levels of Bryan discs) were compared with 40 patients who had two-level anterior fusion (mean follow-up of 39.6 ± 6.7 months). There was no difference in sex, but the mean age of the arthroplasty group was significantly younger (52.1 ± 9.1 vs. 63.0 ± 10.6 years, p < 0.001). The mean estimated blood loss was similar (p = 0.135), but the mean operation time was longer in the arthroplasty group (315.5 ± 82.0 versus 224.9 ± 61.8 min, p < 0.001). At 24 months post-operation, the arthroplasty group had increased their range of motion than pre-operation (23.5° versus 20.1°, p = 0.018). There were significant improvements in neck or arm VAS, JOA scores, and NDI in both groups. However, there were no differences in clinical outcomes or adverse events between the two groups.

Conclusions

Clinical outcomes of two-level arthroplasty and anterior cervical fusion are similar 39.6 months after surgery. Cervical arthroplasty preserves mobility at the index levels without increased adverse effects.

Keywords

Bryan disc Cervical arthroplasty Degenerative disc disease (DDD) Heterotopic ossification Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) 

Notes

Acknowledgments

No funds were received in support of this work and no benefits in any form have been and will be received from a commercial party related directly or indirectly to the subject of this manuscript.

Conflict of interest

The authors report no conflict of interest concerning the materials or methods used in this study, or the findings specified in this paper.

References

  1. 1.
    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 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hilibrand AS, Balasubramanian K, Eichenbaum M, Thinnes JH, Daffner S, Berta S, Albert TJ, Vaccaro AR, Siegler S (2006) The effect of anterior cervical fusion on neck motion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31(15):1688–1692. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000224165.66444.71 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Matz PG, Pritchard PR, Hadley MN (2007) Anterior cervical approach for the treatment of cervical myelopathy. Neurosurgery 60(1 Supp1 1):S64–S70. doi: 10.1227/01.NEU.0000215399.67006.05 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Steinmetz MP, Patel R, Traynelis V, Resnick DK, Anderson PA (2008) Cervical disc arthroplasty compared with fusion in a workers’ compensation population. Neurosurgery 63(4):741–747. doi: 10.1227/01.NEU.0000325495.79104.DB (discussion 747)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Suchomel P, Jurak L, Benes V 3rd, Brabec R, Bradac O, Elgawhary S (2010) Clinical results and development of heterotopic ossification in total cervical disc replacement during a 4-year follow-up. Eur Spine J 19(2):307–315. doi: 10.1007/s00586-009-1259-3 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Traynelis VC (2002) Spinal arthroplasty. Neurosurg Focus 13(2):E10. doi: 10.3171/foc.2002.13.2.11 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wu JC, Huang WC, Tu TH, Tsai HW, Ko CC, Wu CL, Cheng H (2012) Differences between soft-disc herniation and spondylosis in cervical arthroplasty: CT-documented heterotopic ossification with minimum 2 years of follow-up. J Neurosurg Spine 16(2):163–171. doi: 10.3171/2011.10.SPINE11497 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Goffin J, van Loon J, Van Calenbergh F, Lipscomb B (2010) A clinical analysis of 4- and 6-year follow-up results after cervical disc replacement surgery using the Bryan Cervical Disc Prosthesis. J Neurosurg Spine 12(3):261–269. doi: 10.3171/2009.9.SPINE09129 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    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(3):308–318. doi: 10.3171/2010.3.SPINE09513 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Coric D, Nunley PD, Guyer RD, Musante D, Carmody CN, Gordon CR, Lauryssen C, Ohnmeiss DD, Boltes MO (2011) Prospective, randomized, multicenter study of cervical arthroplasty: 269 patients from the Kineflex|C artificial disc investigational device exemption study with a minimum 2-year follow-up: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 15(4):348–358. doi: 10.3171/2011.5.SPINE10769 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    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 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    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 pii:S1529-9430(08)00201-5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Upadhyaya CD, Wu JC, Trost G, Haid RW, Traynelis VC, Tay B, Coric D, Mummaneni PV (2012) Analysis of the three United States Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption cervical arthroplasty trials. J Neurosurg Spine 16(3):216–228. doi: 10.3171/2011.6.SPINE10623 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kim SW, Limson MA, Kim SB, Arbatin JJ, Chang KY, Park MS, Shin JH, Ju YS (2009) Comparison of radiographic changes after ACDF versus Bryan disc arthroplasty in single and bi-level cases. Eur Spine J 18(2):218–231. doi: 10.1007/s00586-008-0854-z PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    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(11):889. doi: 10.3928/01477447-20110922-24 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tu TH, Wu JC, Huang WC, Guo WY, Wu CL, Shih YH, Cheng H (2011) Heterotopic ossification after cervical total disc replacement: determination by CT and effects on clinical outcomes. J Neurosurg Spine 14(4):457–465. doi: 10.3171/2010.11.SPINE10444 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    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 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    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):384–389PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    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). pii:00006123-200510000-00017Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cheng L, Nie L, Zhang L, Hou Y (2009) Fusion versus Bryan Cervical Disc in two-level cervical disc disease: a prospective, randomised study. Int Orthop 33(5):1347–1351. doi: 10.1007/s00264-008-0655-3 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Peng CW, Yue WM, Basit A, Guo CM, Tow BP, Chen JL, Nidu M, Yeo W, Tan SB (2011) Intermediate results of the prestige LP cervical disc replacement: clinical and radiological analysis with minimum two-year follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 36(2):E105–E111. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181d76f99 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wu JC, Huang WC, Tsai HW, Ko CC, Fay LY, Tu TH, Wu CL, Cheng H (2012) Differences between one- and two-level cervical arthroplasty: more heterotopic ossification in two-level disc replacement. J Neurosurg Spine 16(6):594–600. doi: 10.3171/2012.2 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Li-Yu Fay
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Wen-Cheng Huang
    • 1
    • 2
  • Tzu-Yun Tsai
    • 4
    • 5
  • Jau-Ching Wu
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  • Chin-Chu Ko
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Tsung-Hsi Tu
    • 1
    • 2
    • 7
  • Ching-Lan Wu
    • 2
    • 6
  • Henrich Cheng
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Neurosurgery, Neurological InstituteTaipei Veterans General HospitalTaipeiTaiwan
  2. 2.School of MedicineNational Yang-Ming UniversityTaipeiTaiwan
  3. 3.Institute of PharmacologyNational Yang-Ming UniversityTaipeiTaiwan
  4. 4.Department of Ophthalmology, National Taiwan University Hospital, College of MedicineNational Taiwan UniversityTaipeiTaiwan
  5. 5.Department of OphthalmologyNew Taipei City HospitalTaipeiTaiwan
  6. 6.Department of RadiologyTaipei Veterans General HospitalTaipeiTaiwan
  7. 7.Molecular Medicine Program, Taiwan International Graduate Program (TIGP)Academia SinicaTaipeiTaiwan

Personalised recommendations