Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®

, Volume 469, Issue 3, pp 682–687 | Cite as

Operated and Adjacent Segment Motions for Fusion versus Cervical Arthroplasty: A Pilot Study

  • Tomoya Terai
  • Ahmad Faizan
  • Koichi Sairyo
  • Vijay K. Goel
Symposium: Current Concepts in Cervical Spine Surgery

Abstract

Background

Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) represent the standard treatment for cervical spondylolytic radiculopathy and myelopathy. To achieve solid fusion, appropriate compressive loading of the graft and stability are essential. Fusion may lead to adjacent segment degeneration. Artificial discs have been introduced as motion-preserving devices to reduce the risk of fusion-related complications.

Questions/purposes

We therefore asked: (1) Does the use of a plate reduce motion at the operated level and bone graft compression compared to fusion with bone graft alone; and (2) is adjacent-segment motion higher after fusion with a plate?

Methods

Motions and compressive loads in the graft were quantified for intact, C4–C5 ACDF without and with a plate, and total disc arthroplasty in human cadaver spines.

Results

At the surgery level all motions decreased for ACDF with a plate. The motions were similar to intact motions after total disc arthroplasty. The motions across the adjacent segment increased after fusion in all loading modes except lateral bending and were closer to the intact for the total disc arthroplasty case. The plate maintained a compressive load on the graft with a maximum increase in extension.

Conclusions

Unlike fusion, the arthroplasty can restore motion to normal at the surgery and adjacent segments, compared to fusion cases. A cervical plate with a precompression of the graft provides enhanced stability and fusion due to improved compression.

Clinical Relevance

Our findings support the clinical observations that fusion may lead to the degeneration of the adjacent segments. Disc arthroplasty may be able to circumvent the adjacent segment degeneration.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Christopher Bono (Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Boston Medical Center, Boston, MA), Steven Garfin (University of California, San Diego, San Diego, CA), Ashok Biyani and Hossein Elgafy (University of Toledo, Toledo, OH), and Hassan Serhan (DePuy Spine, Inc, Raynham, MA) for their guidance in this study.

References

  1. 1.
    Aebi M, Zuber K, Marchesi D. Treatment of cervical spine injuries with anterior plating indications, techniques, and results. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1991;16(3 suppl):S38–S45.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Albert TJ, Eichenbaum MD. Goals of cervical disc replacement. Spine J. 2004;4:292S–293S.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bohler J. Immediate and early treatment of traumatic paraplegias [in German]. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb. 1967;103:512–529.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Branch CL Jr. Anterior cervical fusion: the case for fusion without plating. Clin Neurosurg. 1999;45:22–24.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brodke DS, Gollogly S, Alexander Mohr R, Nguyen BK, Dailey AT, Bachus KN. Dynamic cervical plates: biomechanical evaluation of load sharing and stiffness. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001;26:1324–1329.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brodke DS, Gollogly S, Bachus KN, Alexander Mohr R, Nguyen BK. Anterior thoracolumbar instrumentation: stiffness and load sharing characteristics of plate and rod systems. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003;28:1794–1801.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bryan VE Jr. Cervical motion segment replacement. Eur Spine J. 2002;11(Suppl 2):S92–S97.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Caspar W, Barbier DD, Klara PM. Anterior cervical fusion and Caspar plate stabilization for cervical trauma. Neurosurgery. 1989;25:491–502.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Caspar W, Geisler FA, Pitzer T, Johnson TA. Anterior cervical plate stabilization in one- and two-level degenerative disease: overtreatment or benefit? J Spinal Disord. 1998;11:1–11.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chang UK, Kim DH, Lee MC, Willenberg R, Kim SH, Lim J. Changes in adjacent-level disc pressure and facet joint force after cervical arthroplasty compared with cervical discectomy and fusion. J Neurosurg Spine. 2007;7:33–39.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cloward R. Treatment of acute fractures and fracture dislocations of the cervical spine by vertebral body fusion: a report of 11 cases. J Neurosurg. 1961;18:205–209.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Crawford NR, Peles JD, Dickman CA. The spinal lax zone and neutral zone: measurement techniques and parameter comparisons. J Spinal Disord. 1998;11:416–429.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    DiAngelo DJ, Foley KT, Morrow BR, Schwab JS, Song J, German JW, Blair E. In vitro biomechanics of cervical disc arthroplasty with the ProDisc-C total disc implant. Neurosurg Focus. 2004:17:E7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    DiAngelo DJ, Roberston JT, Metcalf NH, McVay BJ, Davis RC. Biomechanical testing of an artificial cervical joint and an anterior cervical plate. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2003:16;314–323.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dmitriev AE, Cunningham BW, Hu N, Sell G, Vigna F, McAfee PC. Adjacent level intradiscal pressure and segmental kinematics following a cervical total disc arthroplasty: an in vitro human cadaveric model. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005;30:1165–1172.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Duggal N, Rabin D, Chamberlain RH, Baek S, Crawford NR. Traumatic loading of the Bryan cervical disc prosthesis: an in vitro study. Neurosurgery. 2007;60:388–392; discussion 392–393.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Goel VK, Panjabi MM, Patwardhan AG, Dooris AP, Serhan H. Test protocols for spinal implants. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006:88;103–109.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Goffin J, Casey A, Kehr P, Liebig K, Lind B, Logroscino C, Pointillart V, Van Calenbergh F, van Loon J. Preliminary clinical experience with the Bryan Cervical Disc Prosthesis. Neurosurgery. 2002;51:840–845; discussion 845–847.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gonugunta V, Krishnaney AA, Benzel EC. Anterior cervical plating. Neurol India. 2005;53:424–432.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Harrop JS, Youssef JA, Maltenfort M, Vorwald P, Jabbour P, Bono CM, Goldfarb N, Vaccaro AR, Hilibrand AS. 2008 Lumbar adjacent segment degeneration and disease after arthrodesis and total disc arthroplasty. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 33:1701–1707.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hilibrand AS, Carlson GD, Palumbo MA, Jones PK, Bohlman HH. Radiculopathy and myelopathy at segments adjacent to the site of a previous anterior cervical arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1999;81:519–528.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kaiser MG, Haid RW, Subach BR, Barnes B, Rodts GE. Anterior cervical plating enhances arthrodesis after discectomy and fusion with cortical allograft. Neurosurgery. 2002;50:229–236.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kotani Y, Abumi K, Shikinami Y, Takada T, Kadoya K, Shimamoto N, Ito M, Kadosawa T, Fujinaga T, Kaneda K. Artificial intervertebral disc replacement using bioactive three-dimensional fabric: design, development, and preliminary animal study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2002:27;929–935; discussion 935–936.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    McAfee PC, Cunningham B, Dmitriev A, Hu N, Woo Kim S, Cappuccino A, Pimenta L. Cervical disc replacement-porous coated motion prosthesis: a comparative biomechanical analysis showing the key role of the posterior longitudinal ligament. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003;28:S176–S185.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Miura T, Panjabi MM, Cripton PA. A method to simulate in vivo cervical spine kinematics using in vitro compressive preload. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2002;27:43–48.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Moreland DB, Asch HL, Clabeaux DE, Castiglia GJ, Czajka GA, Lewis PJ, Egnatchik JG, Cappuccino A, Huynh L. Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with implantable titanium cage: initial impressions, patient outcomes and comparison to fusion with allograft. Spine J. 2004;4:184–191.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Nabhan A, Ahlhelm F, Shariat K, Pitzen T, Steimer O, Steudel WI, Pape D. The ProDisc-C prosthesis: clinical and radiological experience 1 year after surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007;32:1935–1941.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ordway NR, Fayyazi AH, Abjornson C, Calabrese J, Park S, Fredrickson B, Yonemura K, Yuan HA. Twelve month follow up of lumbar spine range of motion following intervertebral disc replacement using radiostereometric analysis. SAS J. 2008:2;9–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Panjabi MM, Krag M, Summers D, Videman T. Biomechanical time-tolerance of fresh cadaveric human spine specimens. J Orthop Res. 1985;3:292–300.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Pickett GE, Rouleau JP, Duggal N. Kinematic analysis of the cervical spine following implantation of an artificial cervical disc. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005;30:1949–1954.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Puttlitz CM, Rousseau MA, Xu Z, Hu S, Tay BK, Lotz JC. Intervertebral disc replacement maintains cervical spine kinetics. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004;29:2809–2814.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rabin D, Pickett GE, Bisnaire L, Duggal N. The kinematics of anterior cervical discetomy and fusion versus artificial disc: a pilot study. Neurosurgery. 2007:61,100–104; discussion 104–105.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Robertson JT, Metcalf NH. Long-term outcome after implantation of the Prestige I disc in an end-stage indication: 4-year results from a pilot study. Neurosurg Focus. 2004;17:E10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Robinson R, Smith G. Anterolateral cervical disk removing and interbody fusion for cervical disk syndrome. Bull Johns Hopkins Hosp. 1955;96:223–224.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Samartzis D, Shen FH, Lyon C, Phillips M, Goldberg EJ, An HS. Does rigid instrumentation increase the fusion rate in one-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion? Spine J. 2004;4:636–643.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Wang JC, McDonough PW, Endow KK, Kanim LE, Delamarter RB. The effect of cervical plating on single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. J Spinal Disord. 1999;12:467–471.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Yang S, Wu X, Hu Y, Li J, Liu G, Xu W, Yang C, Ye S. 2008 Early and intermediate follow-up results after treatment of degenerative disc disease with the Bryan cervical disc prosthesis: single- and multiple-level. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008;33:E371–E377.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons® 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tomoya Terai
    • 1
    • 2
  • Ahmad Faizan
    • 1
  • Koichi Sairyo
    • 2
  • Vijay K. Goel
    • 1
  1. 1.Engineering Center for Orthopaedic Research Excellence (E-CORE), Departments of Bioengineering and Orthopaedic Surgery, Colleges of Engineering and MedicineUniversity of ToledoToledoUSA
  2. 2.Department of OrthopedicsUniversity of Tokushima, School of MedicineTokushimaJapan

Personalised recommendations