Abstract
The object of this study is to compare radiographic outcomes of anterior cervical decompression and fusion (ACDF) versus cervical disc replacement using the Bryan Cervical Disc Prosthesis (Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Memphis, TN) in terms of range of motion (ROM), Functional spinal unit (FSU), overall sagittal alignment (C2–C7), anterior intervertebral height (AIH), posterior intervertebral height (PIH) and radiographic changes at the implanted and adjacent levels. The study consisted of 105 patients. A total of 63 Bryan disc were placed in 51 patients. A single level procedure was performed in 39 patients and a two-level procedure in the other 12. Fifty-four patients underwent ACDF, 26 single level cases and 28 double level cases. The Bryan group had a mean follow-up 19 months (12–38). Mean follow-up for the ACDF group was 20 months (12–40 months). All patients were evaluated using static and dynamic cervical spine radiographs as well as MR imaging. All patients underwent anterior cervical discectomy followed by autogenous bone graft with plate (or implantation of a cage) or the Bryan artificial disc prosthesis. Clinical evaluation included the visual analogue scale (VAS), and neck disability index (NDI). Radiographic evaluation included static and dynamic flexion-extension radiographs using the computer software (Infinitt PiviewSTAR 5051) program. ROM, disc space angle, intervertebral height were measured at the operative site and adjacent levels. FSU and overall sagittal alignment (C2–C7) were also measured pre-operatively, postoperatively and at final follow-up. Radiological change was analyzed using χ 2 test (95% confidence interval). Other data were analyzed using the mixed model (SAS enterprises guide 4.1 versions). There was clinical improvement within each group in terms of VAS and NDI scores from pre-op to final follow-up but not significantly between the two groups for both single (VAS p = 0.8371, NDI p = 0.2872) and double (VAS p = 0.2938, NDI p = 0.6753) level surgeries. Overall, ROM and intervertebral height was relatively well maintained during the follow-up in the Bryan group compared to ACDF. Regardless of the number of levels operated on, significant differences were noted for overall ROM of the cervical spine (p < 0.0001) and all other levels except at the upper adjacent level for single level surgeries (p = 0.2872). Statistically significant (p < 0.0001 and p = 0.0172) differences in the trend of intervertebral height measurements between the two groups were noted at all levels except for the AIH of single level surgeries at the upper (p = 0.1264) and lower (p = 0.7598) adjacent levels as well as PIH for double level surgeries at the upper (p = 0.8363) adjacent level. Radiological change was 3.5 times more observed for the ACDF group. Clinical status of both groups, regardless of the number of levels, showed improvement. Although clinical outcomes between the two groups were not significantly different at final follow-up, radiographic parameters, namely ROM and intervertebral heights at the operated site, some adjacent levels as well as FSU and overall sagittal alignment of the cervical spine were relatively well maintained in Bryan group compared to ACDF group. We surmise that to a certain degree, the maintenance of these parameters could contribute to reduce development of adjacent level change. Noteworthy is that radiographic change was 3.5 times more observed for ACDF surgeries. A longer period of evaluation is needed, to see if all these radiographic changes will translate to symptomatic adjacent level disease.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alund M, Larsson SE (1990) Three dimensional analysis of neck motion. A clinical method. Spine 15:87–91. doi:10.1097/00007632-199002000-00007
Bartels RH, Donk R, Van der Wilt GJ et al (2006) Design of the PROCON trial: a prospective, randomized multi-center study comparing cervical anterior discectomy without fusion, with fusion or with arthroplasty. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 7:85–91. doi:10.1186/1471-2474-7-85
Boden SD, Balderston RA, Heller JG et al (2004) An AOA critical issue. Disc replacements: this time will we really cure low-back and neck pain. J Bone Joint Surg Am 86:411–422
Bohlman HH, Emery SE, Goodfellow DB et al (1993) Robinson anterior cervical discectomy and arthrodesis for cervical radiculopathy: long-term follow-up of one hundred and twenty-two patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am 75:1298–1307
Brodke DS, Zdeblick TA (1992) Modified Smith-Robinson procedure for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Spine 17(Suppl):427–430. doi:10.1097/00007632-199210001-00014
Clements DH, O’Leary PF (1990) Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Spine 15:1023–1025. doi:10.1097/00007632-199015100-00008
Cloward RB (1958) The anterior approach for removal of ruptured cervical disks. J Neurosurg 15:602–617
Eck JC, Humphreys SC, Lim TH et al (2002) Biomechanical study on the effect of cervical spine fusion on adjacent-level intradiscal pressure and segmental motion. Spine 27:2431–2434. doi:10.1097/00007632-200211150-00003
Emery SE, Bolestra MJ, Banks MA et al (1994) Robinson anterior cervical fusion: comparison of the standard and modified techniques. Spine 19:660–663. doi:10.1097/00007632-199403001-00004
Fong SY, DuPlessis SJ, Hurlbert J et al (2006) Design limitations of Bryan disc arthroplasty. Spine J 6:233–241. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2006.01.007
Goffin J, Geusens E, Vantomme N et al (2004) Long-term follow-up after interbody fusion of the cervical spine. J Spinal Disord Tech 17:79–85
Goffin J, Pointillart V, Lind B et al (2004) Two-year clinical results from a multicenter study of the Bryan cervical disc system. Proceedings of the NASS 19th annual meeting. Spine J 4:3S–199S. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2004.05.085
Hilibrand A, Carlson G, Palumbo M et al (1999) Radiculopathy and myelopathy at segments adjacent to the site of a previous anterior cervical arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg 81:519–528
Ishihara MK, Kawaguchi H et al (2004) Adjacent segment disease after anterior cervical interbody fusion. Spine J 4(6):624–628. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2004.04.011
Kaiser MG, Haid RWJ et al (2002) Anterior cervical plating enhances arthrodesis after discectomy and fusion with cortical allograft. Neurosurgery 50:229–236. doi:10.1097/00006123-200202000-00001
Kao FC, Niu CC, Chen LH et al (2005) Maintenance of interbody space in one- and two-level anterior cervical interbody fusion. Clin Orthop Relat Res 430:108–116. doi:10.1097/01.blo.0000142626.90278.9e
Lafuente J, Casey AT, Petzold A et al (2005) The Bryan cervical disc prosthesis as an alternative to arthrodesis in the treatment of cervical spondylosis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 87:508–512. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.87B4.15436
Lin EL, Wang JC (2006) Total disk arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 14:705–714
Matsunaga S, Kabayama S, Yamamoto T et al (1999) Strain on intervertebral discs after anterior cervical decompression and fusion. Spine 24:60–675
Mobbs RJ, Rao P, Chandran NK (2007) Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: analysis of surgical outcome with and without plating. J Clin Neurosci 14(7):639–642. doi:10.1016/j.jocn.2006.04.003
Nabhan A, Ahlhelm F, Pitzen T et al (2007) Disc replacement using Pro-Disc C versus fusion: a prospective randomised and controlled radiographic and clinical study. Eur Spine J 16:423–430. doi:10.1007/s00586-006-0226-5
Park JB, Cho YS, Riew D (2005) Ossification in patients with an anterior cervical plate. J Bone Joint Surg Am 3:558–565. doi:10.2106/JBJS.C.01555
Robertson JT, Papadopoulos SM, Traynelis VC (2005) Assessment of adjacent-segment disease in patients treated with cervical fusion or arthroplasty: a prospective 2-year study. J Neurosurg Spine 3:417–423
Robinson RA, Smith GW (1955) Antero-lateral cervical disc removal and interbody fusion for cervical disc syndrome. Bull Johns Hopkins Hosp 96:223–224 (abstract)
Schwab JS, Diangelo DJ, Foley KT (2006) Motion compensation associated with single-level cervical fusion: where does the lost motion go? Spine 31(21):2439–2448. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000239125.54761.23
Seo M, Choi D (2008) Adjacent segment disease after fusion for cervical spondylosis: myth or reality? Br J Neurosurg 22(2):95–99. doi:10.1080/02688690701790605
Shim CS, Lee SH, Park HJ et al (2006) Early clinical and radiologic outcomes of cervical arthroplasty with Bryan cervical disc prosthesis. J Spinal Disord Tech 19:465–470. doi:10.1097/01.bsd.0000211235.76093.6b
Traynelis VC (2005) The prestige cervical disc. Neurosurg Clin N Am 16:621–628. doi:10.1016/j.nec.2005.06.001
Wang JC, McDonough PW et al (2000) Increased fusion rates with cervical plating for two-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Spine 25:41–45. doi:10.1097/00007632-200001010-00009
Wang JC, McDonough PW et al (2001) Increased fusion rates with cervical plating for three-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Spine 26:643–647. doi:10.1097/00007632-200103150-00015
White AA, Panjabi MM (1987) Update on the evaluation of instability of the lower cervical spine. Instr Course Lect 36:513–520
Williams JL, Allen MB, Harkess JW (1968) Late results of cervical discectomy and interbody fusion: some factors influencing the results. J Bone Joint Surg Am 50:277–286
Yoon DH, Yi S, Shin HC et al (2006) Clinical and radiological results following cervical arthroplasty. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 148:943–950. doi:10.1007/s00701-006-0805-6
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kim, S.W., Limson, M.A., Kim, SB. et al. Comparison of radiographic changes after ACDF versus Bryan disc arthroplasty in single and bi-level cases. Eur Spine J 18, 218–231 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-008-0854-z
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-008-0854-z