Does neck pain as chief complaint influence the outcome of cervical total disc replacement?

European Spine Journal volume 29, pages2675–2682(2020)Cite this article

Abstract

Purpose

We investigated whether outcomes after cervical total disc replacement (cTDR) are influenced by preoperative neck pain as the chief complaint.

Methods

This was a retrospective study using data in our local spine surgery outcomes database, linked to EUROSPINE Spine Tango Registry. Patients completed questionnaires at baseline enquiring about the “chief complaint” [neck pain (NP), arm/shoulder pain (AP) or neurological deficits (ND)] and including the Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI); these were completed again at 24 months postoperatively, along with a rating of “global treatment outcome” (on a five-point scale, later dichotomized as “good” or “poor”). Differences in outcomes between the groups were examined using ANOVA. Multivariable regression analysis examined the effect of the chief pain location on 24-month outcomes, controlling for age, gender, comorbidity, baseline pain and COMI scores.

Results

One hundred and fifty-nine consecutive patients were included, with a chief complaint of NP in 31%, AP in 38% and ND in 31%. The chief complaint groups did not differ in relation to their baseline COMI scores or their reductions in score from before surgery to 24 months after surgery (reduction: NP group, 4.4 ± 2.9 points; AP group, 4.7 ± 2.7; ND group, 4.3 ± 2.9; p = 0.78). Similarly, the percentage of patients reporting a “good global treatment outcome” at 24 months postoperatively did not differ between the groups (NP, 79%; AP, 77%; ND, 85%; p  = 0.64). The findings were consistent when controlling for possible confounders in multiple regression.

Conclusions

Having neck pain as opposed to arm pain or neurological deficits as preoperative chief complaint had no significant impact on clinical outcome after cTDR.

Graphic abstract

These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

US$ 39.95

Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1

References

  1. 1.

    Disease GBD, Injury I, Prevalence C (2018) Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 354 diseases and injuries for 195 countries and territories, 1990–2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Lancet 392:1789–1858. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32279-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Cohen SP, Hooten WM (2017) Advances in the diagnosis and management of neck pain. BMJ 358:j3221. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j3221

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Leven D, Meaike J, Radcliff K, Qureshi S (2017) Cervical disc replacement surgery: indications, technique, and technical pearls. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 10:160–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12178-017-9398-3

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Sasso WR, Smucker JD, Sasso MP, Sasso RC (2017) Long-term clinical outcomes of cervical disc arthroplasty: a prospective, randomized, controlled trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 42:209–216. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000001746

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2007.06.018

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Saifi C, Fein A, Cazzulino A, Lehman R, Phillips FM, An HS, Riew KD (2017) Trends in resource utilization and rate of cervical disc arthroplasty and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion throughout the united states from 2006 to 2013. Spine J. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2017.10.072

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Kong L, Cao J, Wang L, Shen Y (2016) Prevalence of adjacent segment disease following cervical spine surgery: a PRISMA-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore) 95:e4171. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000004171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Maharaj MM, Mobbs RJ, Hogan J, Zhao DF, Rao PJ, Phan K (2015) Anterior cervical disc arthroplasty (ACDA) versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF): a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Spine Surg 1:72–85. https://doi.org/10.3978/j.issn.2414-469X.2015.09.01

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Upadhyayula PS, Yue JK, Curtis EI, Hoshide R, Ciacci JD (2017) A matched cohort comparison of cervical disc arthroplasty versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: evaluating perioperative outcomes. J Clin Neurosci 43:235–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocn.2017.04.027

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Lanman TH, Burkus JK, Dryer RG, Gornet MF, McConnell J, Hodges SD (2017) Long-term clinical and radiographic outcomes of the prestige LP artificial cervical disc replacement at 2 levels: results from a prospective randomized controlled clinical trial. J Neurosurg Spine 27:7–19. https://doi.org/10.3171/2016.11.SPINE16746

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Dong L, Wang D, Chen X, Liu T, Xu Z, Tan M, Hao D (2017) A comprehensive meta-analysis of the adjacent segment parameters in cervical disk arthroplasty versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Clin Spine Surg. https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0000000000000552

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Moatz B, Tortolani PJ (2012) Cervical disc arthroplasty: pros and cons. Surg Neurol Int 3:S216–224. https://doi.org/10.4103/2152-7806.98582

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Manchikanti L, Singh V, Rivera J, Pampati V (2002) Prevalence of cervical facet joint pain in chronic neck pain. Pain Physician 5:243–249

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Phillips FM, Geisler FH, Gilder KM, Reah C, Howell KM, McAfee PC (2015) Long-term outcomes of the US FDA IDE prospective, randomized controlled clinical trial comparing PCM cervical disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 40:674–683. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000000869

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    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 19:307–315. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-009-1259-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Kleinstueck FS, Fekete T, Jeszenszky D, Mannion AF, Grob D, Lattig F, Mutter U, Porchet F (2011) The outcome of decompression surgery for lumbar herniated disc is influenced by the level of concomitant preoperative low back pain. Eur Spine J 20:1166–1173. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-010-1670-9

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Hessler C, Boysen K, Regelsberger J, Vettorazzi E, Winkler D, Westphal M (2012) Patient satisfaction after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion is primarily driven by relieving pain. Clin J Pain 28:398–403. https://doi.org/10.1097/AJP.0b013e318232cddc

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Mannion AF, Elfering A, Staerkle R, Junge A, Grob D, Semmer NK, Jacobshagen N, Dvorak J, Boos N (2005) Outcome assessment in low back pain: how low can you go? Eur Spine J 14:1014–1026. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-005-0911-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Mannion AF, Porchet F, Kleinstuck FS, Lattig F, Jeszenszky D, Bartanusz V, Dvorak J, Grob D (2009) The quality of spine surgery from the patient's perspective. Part 1: the Core Outcome Measures Index in clinical practice. Eur Spine J 18(Suppl 3):367–373. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-009-0942-8

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Kleinstuck FS, Grob D, Lattig F, Bartanusz V, Porchet F, Jeszenszky D, O'Riordan D, Mannion AF (2009) The influence of preoperative back pain on the outcome of lumbar decompression surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34:1198–1203. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31819fcf35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Turel MK, Kerolus MG, Adogwa O, Traynelis VC (2017) Cervical arthroplasty: what does the labeling say? Neurosurg Focus 42:E2. https://doi.org/10.3171/2016.11.FOCUS16414

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Findlay C, Ayis S, Demetriades AK (2018) Total disc replacement versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Bone Joint J 100-B:991–1001. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.100B8.BJJ-2018-0120.R1

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Aghayev E, Barlocher C, Sgier F, Hasdemir M, Steinsiepe KF, Wernli F, Porchet F, Hausmann O, Ramadan A, Maestretti G, Ebeling U, Neukamp M, Roder C (2013) Five-year results of cervical disc prostheses in the SWISSspine registry. Eur Spine J 22:1723–1730. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-013-2770-0

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Davis RJ, Nunley PD, Kim KD, Hisey MS, Jackson RJ, Bae HW, Hoffman GA, Gaede SE, Danielson GO 3rd, Gordon C, Stone MB (2015) Two-level total disc replacement with Mobi-C cervical artificial disc versus anterior discectomy and fusion: a prospective, randomized, controlled multicenter clinical trial with 4-year follow-up results. J Neurosurg Spine 22:15–25. https://doi.org/10.3171/2014.7.SPINE13953

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Fekete TF, Loibl M, Jeszenszky D, Haschtmann D, Banczerowski P, Kleinstuck FS, Becker HJ, Porchet F, Mannion AF (2018) How does patient-rated outcome change over time following the surgical treatment of degenerative disorders of the thoracolumbar spine? Eur Spine J 27:700–708. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-017-5358-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Fekete TF, Porchet F (2010) Overview of disc arthroplasty-past, present and future. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 152:393–404. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00701-009-0529-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Yin W, Bogduk N (2008) The nature of neck pain in a private pain clinic in the United States. Pain Med 9:196–203. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-4637.2007.00369.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Manchikanti L, Dunbar EE, Wargo BW, Shah RV, Derby R, Cohen SP (2009) Systematic review of cervical discography as a diagnostic test for chronic spinal pain. Pain Physician 12:305–321

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Jaumard NV, Welch WC, Winkelstein BA (2011) Spinal facet joint biomechanics and mechanotransduction in normal, injury and degenerative conditions. J Biomech Eng 133:071010. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4004493

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Liu J, Ebraheim NA, Haman SP, Sanford CG, Jr., Sairyo K, Faizan A, Woldenberg L, Goel VK (2006) How the increase of the cervical disc space height affects the facet joint: an anatomy study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31:E350–E354. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000219496.42765.8a

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Carrera GF, Haughton VM, Syvertsen A, Williams AL (1980) Computed tomography of the lumbar facet joints. Radiology 134:145–148. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.134.1.7350594

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Falco FJ, Manchikanti L, Datta S, Wargo BW, Geffert S, Bryce DA, Atluri S, Singh V, Benyamin RM, Sehgal N, Ward SP, Helm S 2nd, Gupta S, Boswell MV (2012) Systematic review of the therapeutic effectiveness of cervical facet joint interventions: an update. Pain Physician 15:E839–E868

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Harrell F (2001) Regression modeling strategies. With applications to linear models, logistic and ordinal regression, and survival analysis. Springer, Berlin. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-3462-1

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Spine Center, Schulthess Clinic, Zurich, Switzerland

    S. Finkenstaedt, A. F. Mannion, T. F. Fekete, D. Haschtmann, F. S. Kleinstueck, U. Mutter, H. J. Becker, D. Bellut & F. Porchet

Authors
  1. S. Finkenstaedt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A. F. Mannion
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. T. F. Fekete
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. D. Haschtmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. F. S. Kleinstueck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. U. Mutter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. H. J. Becker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. D. Bellut
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. F. Porchet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S. Finkenstaedt.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (PPTX 329 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Finkenstaedt, S., Mannion, A.F., Fekete, T.F. et al. Does neck pain as chief complaint influence the outcome of cervical total disc replacement?. Eur Spine J 29, 2675–2682 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-019-06052-8

Download citation

Keywords

  • Neck pain
  • Cervical total disc replacement
  • cTDR
  • Cervical arthroplasty