Single-level Cervical Degenerative Disc Disease Research Articles

Mid-term follow-up outcomes of single-level cervical total disc replacement versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for the treatment of cervical disc degenerative disease.

To evaluate the clinical and radiographic results of cervical total disc replacement (CTDR) and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) in the treatment of single-level cervical disc degenerative disease with a mid-term follow-up period. Seventy-two patients with C5/6 single-level cervical degenerative disc disease refractory to conservative interventions were randomly assigned to two groups: ACDF and CTDR. Clinical outcomes were assessed by using the Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score and the Neck Disability Index (NDI). Radiographic evaluations included range of motion (ROM), Cobb angles, heterotopic ossification (HO) and adjacent segment degeneration during follow-up. Sixty-nine patients (35 CTDR and 34 ACDF) were followed up over 4 years (mean 50.3 months). At 1 month postoperation, the NDI scores in CTDR patients were significantly higher than those in ACDF patients, especially in the work, driving and recreation aspects. There was significant improvement in global ROM in CTDR patients than in ACDF patients. The postoperative ROM of the C4/5 segment in ACDF patients increased significantly, and no significant difference was shown in other adjacent segments. The occurrence of HO was 42.9% (15/35) in the CTDR group at the last followup, with Grade I in 3 cases, Grade II in 11 cases and Grade III in 1 case. CTDR is an effective method in the treatment of single-level cervical disc degenerative disease. Compared to ACDF, CTDR is superior in the early improvement of quality of life, and restoration of segmental motion despite radiographic evidence of HO during a mid-term follow-up period.

Titanium-interlayer mediated hydroxyapatite coating on polyetheretherketone: a prospective study in patients with single-level cervical degenerative disc disease

BackgroundCurrently, there are limited reports regarding investigation of the biological properties of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) coated with titanium (Ti) and hydroxyapatite (HA) in human. The objective of this study is to evaluate the in vivo response of the PEEK cages coated with Ti and HA versus uncoated PEEK cages after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) in patients with single-level cervical degenerative disc disease (CDDD).MethodsTwenty-four patients with PEEK cages coated with Ti and HA (PEEK/Ti/HA group) were matched one-to-one with patients with uncoated PEEK cages (PEEK group) based on age, gender, and operative segment. All patients had been followed up for more than 2 years. Radiological assessments included intervertebral height (IH), C2-7 angle (C2-7a), segmental alignment (SA), and fusion rate. Clinical parameters included Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) scores.ResultsThere was no statistical difference in SA, IH, and C2-7a between the two groups before and after surgery and all these parameters were restored postoperatively. The fusion rate of PEEK/Ti/HA group was significantly higher than PEEK group at 3-month post-operation (87.5% vs. 62.5%). At the last follow-up, the fusion rate of the both groups achieved 100%. The VAS and JOA scores were comparable between two groups and improved postoperatively.ConclusionsIn patients with single-level ACDF, PEEK cage coated with Ti and HA provided a higher fusion rate than uncoated PEEK cage at 3-month post-operation, while both two cages could achieve solid osseous fusion at the last follow up. Compared with the uncoated PEEK cage, PEEK/Ti/HA cage yielded similar favorable segmental and overall cervical lordosis, IH, and clinical outcomes after the surgery.

Titanium-interlayer mediated hydroxyapatite coating on polyetheretherketone: A prospective study in patients with single-level cervical degenerative disc disease

Titanium-interlayer mediated hydroxyapatite coating on polyetheretherketone: A prospective study in patients with single-level cervical degenerative disc disease

The Functional outcome following anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for single level cervical degenerative disc disease: a prospective single institutional study

Introduction: Cervical degenerative disc diseases leading to cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) is one the most common cause of disability in elderly population that progresses with age with continuation of degree of degeneration.
 Objective: To assess the functional outcome following ACDF in single-level cervical degenerative disc disease in terms of improvement in the mJOA scoring system and postoperative complications.
 Materials and methods: Eighteen patients with single level cervical degenerative disc diseases who presented at the college of medical sciences from May 2018 to October 2019 fulfilling the inclusion criteria (single-level cervical degenerative disc disease with age between 40 to 70 years with progressive neurological deficits, features of cervical spondylotic myelopathy and patients with mild grade who failed four weeks of conservative treatment and progressed to moderate or severe grades) were included in the study. All patients underwent Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion (ACDF); with tricortical iliac crest graft with cervical plate and screws in 13 patients and polyether ether ketone (PEEK) cage placement in five patients. Patients were assessed using mJOA scoring system and graded into mild, moderate and severe myelopathy. Post-operatively patients were assessed for improvement in terms of mJOA scores at four weeks and three months follow-up. They were also assessed for development of any post-operative complications and documented accordingly. Statistical analysis was done using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences version 20 software.
 Results: Out of 18 patients, at the time of presentation 12 were in moderate grade and six were in severe grade. During subsequent follow up at four weeks and three months, patients showed progressive improvement. 15 patients improved to mild grade while two remained in moderate grade and one in severe grade during three months postoperative assessment. One patient each developed dysphagia, hoarseness and superficial wound infection that were managed conservatively.
 Conclusion: Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion is one of the effective and safe treatments for single-level degenerative cervical disc disease associated with cervical spondylotic myelopathy with minimal complications.

Single level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion versus dynamic cervical implant: clinical and radiological outcome

BackgroundAlthough anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is considered a gold standard approach for surgical management of cervical disc herniation syndromes, the use of dynamic cervical implant (DCI) provided a novel technique that aims at reconstruction of the anterior column while facilitating controlled neck motion and reducing stress across the facet joints.Aim of the workThe objective of this study is to evaluate the clinical and radiological outcome of the DCI surgery in comparison to that achieved with ACDF using a conventional polyethylethylketone (PEEK) cage.Materials and methodsThis is a retrospective comparative study of 30 patients, with single level cervical degenerative disc disease (DDD), managed by the authors, either by DCI (n = 15) or ACDF (n = 15). Clinical and radiologic outcomes were assessed at 1, 3, and 12 months postoperatively. Clinical scoring systems included the Visual Analog Scale for Neck (VAS-N) and Arm (VAS-A), the Neck Disability Index score (NDI), as well as the evaluation of incidence of complications and neurological deterioration postoperatively. Radiographic evaluation included the assessment of postoperative cervical implant fusion, as well as evaluating the incidence of implant migration. Study duration was for two years from October 2016 to October 2018.ResultsBoth the ACDF and DCI groups showed significant clinical improvement at 12 months postoperatively regarding the clinical outcome including VAS-A, VAS-N, and NDI values (P = 0.001), while there was no significant difference on comparing between the two groups as regard the VAS-N, the VAS-A, and the NDI at 1,3 and 12 months after surgery. The ACDF group however showed better rate of implant fusion at 12 months postoperatively in contrast to the DCI group (80% and 26,7%, respectively) also, the ACDF group showed a lower rate of implant subsidence at 12 months after surgery (P = 0.002). Besides, the incidence of implant migration was relatively high in the DCI group (20%).ConclusionThe clinical results for DCI arthroplasty for the management of single-level cervical DDD are equivalent to those for ACDF; however, though providing an immediate dynamic stability, DCI is associated with a low fusion rate, higher rates of implant subsidence, and relatively high implant migration rate. Larger series and further studies should be considered with longer follow-up periods giving special attention to these issues.

One-Year NDI and VAS Outcomes from the Single-Level PEEK-on-Ceramic SimplifyTM Disc FDA IDE Trial

This study was performed to evaluate the early clinical results at one year for the Simplify™ Cervical Artificial Disc. We compared outcomes for 150 Simplify Disc subjects at one-year followup in a prospective, multicenter, FDA IDE clinical trial with 119 propensity score matched historical control subjects who received conventional anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for single-level cervical degenerative disc disease. The outcome measures included the change from preoperative baseline to one-year in Neck Disability Index (NDI) and visual analog scales (VAS) for neck and arm pain, with scores for the few missing oneyear follow-up implicitly imputed using mixed models for repeated measures (MMRM). The MMRM was used to estimate within group and between group differences controlling for propensity score subclass and the relevant baseline value. The adjusted mean changes (and standard errors) in NDI from baseline to one year were -46.7 (SE=1.7, p<0.001) and -38.1 (SE=1.9, p<0.001) for Simplify Disc subjects and ACDF control subjects, respectively. The adjusted Simplify Disc vs. control difference in mean NDI change at one year was -8.7 (SE=2.7) with p=0.002; the 95% confidence interval for the mean difference was -14.0 to -3.3. The adjusted mean changes in VAS neck and arm pain from baseline to one year were -62.4 (SE=2.0, p<0.001) and -55.2 (SE=2.3, p<0.001) for Simplify Disc and ACDF controls, respectively. The adjusted Simplify Disc vs. control difference in mean VAS neck and arm pain change at one year was -7.3 (SE=3.3) with p=0.029 (95% CI -13.8 to 0.8). Therefore, it can be concluded that the one-year clinical results of the Simplify Disc are superior to ACDF for both 1) improvement of NDI and 2) improvement in VAS neck and arm pain. Inspection of all eight prior FDA cervical total disc replacement studies indicates that these good results for the Simplify Disc can be expected to continue for five years and beyond, but longer term follow-up is necessary for verification.

Comparison among perfect-C\xae, zero-P\xae, and plates with a cage in single-level cervical degenerative disc disease

BackgroundWe intended to analyze the efficacy of a new integrated cage and plate device called Perfect-C for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) to cure single-level cervical degenerative disc disease.MethodsWe enrolled 148 patients who were subjected to single-level ACDF with one of the following three surgical devices: a Perfect-C implant (41 patients), a Zero-P implant (36 patients), or a titanium plate with a polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cage (71 patients). We conducted a retrospective study to compare the clinical and radiological results among the three groups.ResultsThe length of the operation, intraoperative blood loss, and duration of hospitalization were significantly lower in the Perfect-C group than in the Zero-P and plate-with-cage groups (P < 0.05). At the last follow-up visit, heterotopic ossification (HO) was not observed in any cases (0%) in the Perfect-C and Zero-P groups but was noted in 21 cases (30%) in the plate-with-cage group. The cephalad and caudal plate-to-disc distance (PDD) and the cephalad and caudal PDD/anterior body height (ABH) were significantly greater in the Perfect-C and Zero-P groups than in the plate-with-cage group (P < 0.05). Subsidence occurred in five cases (14%) in the Perfect-C group, in nine cases (25%) in the Zero-P group, and in 15 cases (21%) in the plate-with-cage group. Fusion occurred in 37 cases (90%) in the Perfect-C group, in 31 cases (86%) in the Zero-P group, and in 68 cases (95%) in the plate-with-cage group.ConclusionsThe Perfect-C, Zero-P, and plate-with-cage devices are effective for treating single-level cervical degenerative disc disease. However, the Perfect-C implant has many advantages over both the Zero-P implant and conventional plate-cage treatments. The Perfect-C implant was associated with shorter operation times and hospitalization durations, less blood loss, and lower subsidence rates compared with the Zero-P implant or the titanium plate with a PEEK cage.

Preliminary Clinical Outcomes From The Polyetheretherketone On Ceramic Simplify™ Disc FDA IDE Trial

Background: This study was performed to evaluate the preliminary clinical results for the Simplify™ Cervical Artificial Disc. Methods: We compared outcomes for the first 61 subjects to reach Month 12 follow-up in a prospective, multicenter, FDA IDE clinical trial with 61 propensity score matched historical control subjects who received conventional anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for single-level cervical degenerative disc disease. The outcome measures included the change from preoperative baseline to Month 12 in Neck Disability Index (NDI) and visual analog scales (VAS) for neck and arm pain with missing follow-up determined by last observation carried forward. Results: The null hypothesis that the Simplify 1-disc is inferior to ACDF (non-inferiority margin=8.4) was rejected at a 1-sided p<0.0001. The upper bound of the 1-sided 95% non-inferiority confidence interval was -7.44 which is much smaller than the non-inferiority margin of 8.4. Superiority was demonstrated with a 2-sided p=0.0004. The upper bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval was -6.26 which is much less than zero. Sensitivity analyses on the assumptions about missing data and the matching included completer’s analyses and analyses that were restricted to the 55 of 61 first stage matches that could be achieved without expanding of the calipers used to identify potential matches. The p-values for non-inferiority in all analyses are <0.0001. Similarly, the p-values for superiority are all ≤ 0.0030. Conclusion: Therefore, we conclude that the Simplify Disc is superior to ACDF control in terms of improvement in NDI and VAS from baseline to Month 12.

Comparison of dynamic cervical implant versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for the treatment of single-level cervical degenerative disc disease: A five-year follow-up

ObjectiveTo compare clinical and radiographic outcomes of dynamic cervical implant(DCI) with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion(ACDF) in the treatment of single-level cervical degenerative disc disease (CDDD) 5 years after surgery. Patients and methodsForty-three patients with DCI were matched one-to-one with patients with ACDF based on age, gender, and operative segment in this retrospective study. All patients had been followed up for more than 5 years. Radiological assessments included heterotopic ossification(HO), adjacent segment degeneration (ASD), intervertebral height (IH), range of motion (ROM) at C2-7, the implanted level and adjacent levels. Clinical parameters included Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) scores, Neck Disability Index (NDI) and Short Form-36 scores(SF-36). Patients were also asked to rate their postoperative satisfaction at final follow-up. ResultsThe postoperative ROM of C2-7 and ROM at the implanted level in the DCI group were higher than those in the ACDF group. The ROM at the implanted level in the DCI group was maintained at 2 years postoperatively but decreased at final follow-up (10.7° vs 4.5°). The rate of HO in the DCI group was 46.5% (20/43). The rate of ASD was comparable between the two groups (16.3% vs 20.9%). The JOA, VAS, NDI, and SF-36 scores were comparable between two groups and improved postoperatively. However, the proportion of patients who reported their level of satisfaction as being very satisfied, or somewhat satisfied was larger in the ACDF group than that in the DCI group (95.3% vs 79.1%). ConclusionsDCI resulted in better ROM of C2-7 and the implanted level than ACDF did. The clinical outcomes were similar between two groups. However, the ROM at the implanted level decreased at final follow-up in the DCI group, which may contribute to patient dissatisfaction. The long-term outcomes were not that satisfactory especially due to the deviation from its original intention as a non-fusion technique. As such, we have not used DCI in the past 2 years.

Clinical and radiographic comparison of cervical disc arthroplasty with Prestige-LP Disc and anterior cervical fusion: A minimum 6-year follow-up study

ObjectivesTo retrospectively compare the long-term clinical and radiographic outcomes of cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) with Prestige-LP Disc and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for single-level cervical degenerative disc disease. Patients and methodsNinety-eight patients (45 CDA and 53 ACDF) with a minimum 6-year follow-up were included. Clinical evaluations included Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA), visual analogue scale (VAS), and Neck Disability Index (NDI) scores. Radiographic evaluations included sagittal alignment, range of motion (ROM) at the index and adjacent level, adjacent segment degeneration (ASD), and heterotopic ossification (HO). ResultsAt the final follow-up, there were no significant differences in JOA, VAS neck, and VAS arm scores between the two groups. However, NDI scores improved more in the CDA group than in the ACDF group. The sagittal alignment was maintained in both groups. The ROM at the index level in the CDA group was decreased from 9.6±4.3° at baseline to 7.8±4.7° at the final follow-up. The ROM at the cranial adjacent level in the ACDF group was increased. The incidence of ASD was lower in the CDA group than in the ACDF group (26.7% vs 49.1%, p=0.023). HO was observed in 46.7% of the patients but did not influence the clinical outcome. ConclusionBoth CDA with Prestige-LP Disc and ACDF showed good clinical outcomes at a minimum 6-year follow-up. Compared with ACDF, CDA preserved the motion and reduced the incidence of ASD.

Cervical sagittal alignment after different anterior discectomy procedures for single-level cervical degenerative disc disease: randomized controlled trial

BackgroundThe effect of anterior cervical discectomy without fusion (ACD), ACD with fusion by stand-alone cage (ACDF) or with arthroplasty (ACDA) on cervical sagittal alignment is not known and is the subject of this study.MethodsA total of 142 adult patients with single-level cervical disease were at random allocated to different procedures: ACD (45), ACDF (47) and ACDA (50). Upright cervical spine radiographs were obtained. Angles of the involved angle and the angle between C2 and C7 were determined.ResultsAfter a mean follow-up of 25.4 ± 18.4 months, the angles of the involved level comparing ACD with ACDA and ACD with ACDF were different, reaching statistical significance. However, the angle between C2 and C7 did not differ between groups or between preoperative values and at follow-up.ConclusionsIrrespective of the technique used for anterior cervical discectomy for single-level degenerative disc disease, the alignment of the cervical spine is unaltered.

Arthroplasty versus fusion for single-level cervical degenerative disc disease

Arthroplasty versus fusion for single-level cervical degenerative disc disease

Clinical and radiologic comparison of dynamic cervical implant arthroplasty and cervical total disc replacement for single-level cervical degenerative disc disease

Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, to date the most successful spine procedure for the surgical treatment of cervical radiculopathy, has limitations that have led to the development of non-fusion cervical procedures, such as cervical total disc replacement (TDR) and dynamic cervical implant (DCI) arthroplasty. We compared the clinical and radiological results of DCI and cervical TDR for the treatment of single-level cervical degenerative disc disease in Chinese patients. A retrospective review of 179 patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy who underwent DCI or TDR between April 2010 and October 2012 was conducted, and 152 consecutive patients (67 patients single-level DCI and 85 single-level TDR) who completed at least 2years of follow-up were included. Clinical and radiological assessments were performed preoperatively and at 1week and 3, 6, 12, and 24months postoperatively. The most common operative level was C5/C6 (49.3%). The differences in blood loss, duration of surgery, and duration of hospitalization were not statistically significant. The Japanese Orthopaedic Association scale, Visual Analog Scale, Neck Disability Index, and Short Form-36 scores improved significantly after surgery in both the DCI and TDR groups (P<0.05), but the differences were not statistically significant at the final follow-up. The rate of occurrence of heterotopic ossification was 22.4% and 28.2% in the DCI and TDR groups, respectively. As an effective non-fusion technique, DCI is a more economical procedure. Further prospective, randomized studies with long-term follow-up periods are needed to determine the long-term effects.

WITHDRAWN: Arthroplasty versus fusion in single-level cervical degenerative disc disease.

Background There is ongoing debate about whether fusion or arthroplasty is superior in the treatment of single level cervical degenerative disc disease. Mainly because the intended advantage of arthroplasty over fusion, that is, the prevention of symptoms due to adjacent segment degeneration in the long term, is not confirmed yet. Until sufficient long‐term results become available, it is important to know whether results of one of the two treatments are superior to the other in the first one to two years. Objectives To assess the effects of arthroplasty versus fusion for radiculopathy or myelopathy, or both due to single level cervical degenerative disc disease. Search methods We searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials (RCTs): CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 2), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and EBMR. Additionally, we searched the System for Information on Grey Literature (SIGLE), subheading Biological and Medical Sciences, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) database on medical devices, and Clinicaltrials.gov to identify trials in progress. We also screened the reference list of all selected papers. Date of search: 25 May 2011. Selection criteria We included RCTs that directly compared any type of cervical fusion with any type of arthroplasty, with at least one year of follow‐up. Primary outcomes were arm pain, neck pain, neck‐related functional status, patient satisfaction, neurological outcome, and global health status. Secondary outcomes were the presence of (radiological) fusion, revision surgery at the treated level, secondary surgery on adjacent levels, segmental mobility of treated and adjacent levels, and work status. Data collection and analysis Study selection was performed independently by three review authors, and 'Risk of bias' assessment and data extraction were performed by two review authors. In case of missing data or insufficient information for a judgement about risk of bias, we tried to contact the study authors or the study sponsor. The data were entered into RevMan by one review author and subsequently checked by a second review author. We assessed the quality of evidence using GRADE. We analysed heterogeneity and performed sensitivity analyses for the pooled analyses. Main results We included nine studies (2400 participants), five of which had a low risk of bias. Eight of these studies were industry sponsored. The most important results showed low‐quality evidence for a small but significant difference in alleviation of arm pain at one to two years in favour of arthroplasty (mean difference (MD) ‐1.54; 95% confidence interval (CI) ‐2.86 to ‐0.22; 100‐point scale). A small study effect could not be ruled out for this outcome in the sensitivity analyses. This means that smaller studies (or small published subsets of larger studies) showed larger differences for this outcome, which may indicate publication bias. Also, moderate‐quality evidence showed a small difference in neck‐related functional status at one to two years in favour of arthroplasty (MD ‐2.79; 95% CI ‐4.73 to ‐0.85; 100‐point scale) and a small difference in neurological outcome in favour of arthroplasty (risk ratio (RR) 1.05; 95% CI 1.01 to 1.09). These two outcomes were robust to sensitivity analyses. For none of the primary outcomes, was a clinically relevant difference shown. Additionally, there was high‐quality evidence for a large, statistically significant difference in segmental mobility at one to two years (measured as degrees segmental range of motion) at the treated level (MD 6.90; 95% CI 5.45 to 8.35). There was low‐quality evidence that there was no statistically significant difference in secondary surgery at the adjacent levels at one to two years (RR 0.60; 95% CI 0.35 to 1.02). The latter was not robust to sensitivity analyses. Authors' conclusions There was a tendency for clinical results to be in favour of arthroplasty; often these were statistically significant. However, differences in effect size were invariably small and not clinically relevant for all primary outcomes. Significance was often gained or lost in the varying sensitivity analyses, probably owing to the relatively small number of studies, in combination with the small differences that were found. Given the fact that all of the included studies were not blinded, this could be due to patient or carer expectations. However, at this time both treatments can be seen as valid options with respect to results at a maximum of one to two years. Given the current absence of truly long‐term results, use of these mobile disc prostheses should still be limited to clinical trials. There was high‐quality evidence that the goal of preservation of segmental mobility in arthroplasty was met. A statistically significant effect on the incidence of secondary symptoms at adjacent levels, the primary goal of arthroplasty over fusion, was not found at one to two years. If there was a protective effect, this should become clearer over time. A future update, when studies with 'truly long‐term' results (five years or more) become available, should focus on this issue.

Health state utility of patients with single-level cervical degenerative disc disease: comparison of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with cervical disc arthroplasty

Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of medical interventions has become increasingly relevant to the discussion of optimization of care. The use of utility scales in CEA permits a quantitative assessment of effectiveness of a given intervention. There are no published utility values for degenerative disc disease (DDD) of the cervical spine, anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), or cervical disc replacement (CDR). The purpose of this study was to define health utility values for those health states. The 36-Item Short Form Health Survey data from the ProDisc-C investigational device exemption study were obtained for single-level DDD at baseline and 24 months postoperatively after ACDF or CDR procedures. Patients in the original study were randomized to either ACDF or CDR. Utilizing a commercially available Short Form-6 dimensions program, utility scores were calculated for each health state using a set of parametric preference weights obtained from a sample of the general population using the recognized valuation technique of standard gamble. The baseline health state utility (HSU) value for a patient with single-level DDD was 0.54 in both the ACDF and CDR groups. Postoperative changes in HSU values were seen in both intervention groups at 24 months. Cervical disc replacement had a HSU value of 0.72. Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion was found to have a postoperative utility state of 0.71. No statistically significant difference was found in the HSU for ACDF and CDR at 24 months of follow-up. This study represents the first calculated HSU value for a patient with single-level cervical DDD. Additionally, 2 common treatment interventions for this disease state were assessed. Both treatments were found to have significant impact on the HSU values. These values are integral to future CEA of ACDF and CDR.

Clinical and radiologic comparison of dynamic cervical implant arthroplasty versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for the treatment of cervical degenerative disc disease

This study compared the clinical and radiological outcomes of dynamic cervical implant (DCI; Scient’x, Villers-Bretonneux, France) arthroplasty versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for the treatment of cervical degenerative disc disease. This prospective cohort study enrolled patients with single-level cervical degenerative disc disease who underwent DCI arthroplasty or ACDF between September 2009 and June 2011. Patients were followed up for more than 2years. Clinical evaluation included the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), Neck Disability Index (NDI), Japan Orthopedic Association (JOA) score, and visual analog scale (VAS) scores for neck and arm pain. Radiological assessments included segmental range of motion (ROM), overall ROM (C2–C7), disc height (DHI), and changes in adjacent disc spaces. The VAS, SF-36, JOA, and NDI scores improved significantly after surgery in both the DCI and ACDF groups. The VAS, JOA, and SF-36 scores were not significantly different between the DCI and ACDF groups at the final follow-up. The segmental ROM at the treated level and overall ROM increased significantly after surgery in the DCI group, but the ROM in the adjacent cephalad and caudal segments did not change significantly. The mean DHI at the treated level was significantly restored after surgery in both groups. Five patients (12.8%) in the DCI group showed new signs of adjacent segment degeneration. These results indicate that DCI is an effective, reliable, and safe procedure for the treatment of cervical degenerative disc disease. However, there is no definitive evidence that DCI arthroplasty has better intermediate-term results than ACDF.

Cochrane in CORR® : Arthroplasty Versus Fusion in Single-level Cervical Degenerative Disc Disease

(Boselie TFM, Willems PC, van Mameren H, de Bie R, Benzel EC, van Santbrink H. Arthroplasty versus fusion in single-level cervical degenerative disc disease. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012, Issue 9. Art. No.: CD009173. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009173.pub2. Copyright The Cochrane Collaboration, Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., reproduced with permission.) A Note from the Editor-in-Chief: I am pleased to announce the partnership between CORR®, The Cochrane Collaboration® , and McMaster University’s Evidence-Based Orthopaedics Group for a new column, called Cochrane in CORR® . In it, we will identify an abstract originally published in The Cochrane Library that we think is especially important, and Dr. Mohit Bhandari, our Deputy Editor for Evidence-Based Orthopaedics, and his colleagues from McMaster University will provide expert perspective on it. The author certifies that he, or a member of his immediate family, has no funding or commercial associations (eg, consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest, patent/licensing arrangements, etc) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article. All ICMJE Conflict of Interest Forms for authors and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research ® editors and board members are on file with the publication and can be viewed on request. The opinions expressed are those of the writers, and do not reflect the opinion or policy of CORR ® or the Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons®. Cochrane Reviews are regularly updated as new evidence emerges and in response to feedback, and The Cochrane Library (http://www.thecochranelibrary.com) should be consulted for the most recent version of the review. This Cochrane in CORR® column refers to the abstract available at: DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009173.pub2.

Arthroplasty Versus Fusion in Single-Level Cervical Degenerative Disc Disease

A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). To assess the effects of arthroplasty versus fusion in the treatment of radiculopathy or myelopathy, or both, due to single-level cervical degenerative disc disease. There is ongoing debate about whether fusion or arthroplasty is superior in the treatment of single-level cervical degenerative disc disease. Mainly because the intended advantage of arthroplasty compared with fusion, prevention of symptoms due to adjacent segment degeneration in the long term, is not confirmed yet. Until sufficient long-term results become available, it is important to know whether results of 1 of the 2 treatments are superior to the other in the first 1 to 2 years. We searched electronic databases for randomized controlled trials. We included randomized controlled trials that directly compared any type of cervical fusion with any type of cervical arthroplasty, with at least 1 year of follow-up. Study selection was performed independently by 3 review authors, and "risk of bias" assessment and data extraction were independently performed by 2 review authors. In case of missing data, we contacted the study authors or the study sponsor. We assessed the quality of evidence. Nine studies (2400 participants) were included in this review; 5 of these studies had a low risk of bias. Results for the arthroplasty group were better than the fusion group for all primary comparisons, often statistically significant. For none of the primary outcomes was a clinically relevant difference in effect size shown. Quality of the evidence was low to moderate. There is low to moderate quality evidence that results are consistently in favor of arthroplasty, often statistically significant. However, differences in effect size were invariably small and not clinically relevant for all primary outcomes. 1.

Adjacent-level degeneration after cervical disc arthroplasty versus fusion

The principal objective of this study was to evaluate the incidence of adjacent-segment degeneration (ASD) in patients who underwent cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) as compared with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). It is a prospective cohort study of patients with a single-level cervical degenerative disc disease from C3 to C7 who underwent CDA or ACDF between January 2004 and December 2006, with a minimum follow-up of 3 years. The patients were evaluated pre- and postoperatively with the visual analog scale (VAS), the neck disability index (NDI), and a complete neurological examination. Plain radiographic assessments included sagittal-plane angulation, range of motion (ROM), and radiological signs of ASD. One hundred and five patients underwent ACDF and 85 were treated with CDA. The postoperative VAS and NDI were equivalent in both groups. The ROM was preserved in the CDA group but with a small decreased tendency within the time. Radiographic evidence of ASD was found in 11 (10.5%) patients in the ACDF group and in 7 (8.8%) subjects in the CDA group. The Kaplan-Meier survival analysis for the ASD occurrence did not reach statistically significant differences (log rank, P = 0.72). Preservation of motion in the CDA patients was not associated with a reduction of the incidence of symptomatic adjacent-segment disease and there may be other factors that influence ASD.

Bioabsorbable instrumentation for single-level cervical degenerative disc disease: a radiological and clinical outcome study

The authors present the radiological and clinical outcome data obtained in patients who underwent single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for cervical spondylosis and/or disc herniation; bioabsorbable plates were used for instrumentation. The use of metallic plates in ACDF has gained acceptance as a stabilizing part of the procedure to increase fusion rates, but when complications occur with these devices, the overall effectiveness of the procedure is compromised. As a possible solution, bioabsorbable implants for ACDF have been developed. This study investigates the feasibility and radiological and clinical outcomes of the bioabsorbable plates for ACDF. The radiological and clinical outcomes of 30 patients were investigated retrospectively. All patients presented with cervical radiculopathy or myelopathy and underwent single-level ACDF in which a bioabsorbable anterior cervical plate and an allograft bone spacer were placed at a level between C-3 and C-7. Radiological outcome was assessed based on the fusion rate, subsidence, and Cobb angle of the surgical level. Clinical outcome was determined by using a visual analog scale, the Neck Disability Index, and the Odom criteria. There were no intraoperative complications, and no hardware failure was observed. No signs or symptoms of adverse tissue reaction caused by the implant were seen. Two reoperations were necessary due to postoperative blood collections. The overall complication rate was 16.7%. After 6 months, radiographic fusion was seen in 92.3% of patients. Subsidence at 11.3 +/- 7.2 months was 3.1 +/- 5.8 mm (an 8.2% change over the immediately postoperative results), and the change in the sagittal curvature was -2.7 +/- 2.7 degrees . The visual analog scale score for neck and arm pain and Neck Disability Index improved significantly after surgery (p < 0.001). Overall at 19.5 months postoperatively, 83% of the patients had favorable outcomes based on the Odom criteria. Absorbable instrumentation provides better stability than the absence of a plate but graft subsidence and deformity rates may be higher than those associated with metal implants. There were no device-related complications, but adverse late effects cannot be excluded. The fusion rate and outcome are comparable to the results achieved with metallic plates. The authors were satisfied with the use of bioabsorbable plates as a reasonable alternative to metal, avoiding the need for lifelong metallic implants.