nach oben

European Spine Journal

Erschienen in:

01.06.2011 | Original Article

Assessment of adjacent-segment mobility after cervical disc replacement versus fusion: RCT with 1 year’s results

verfasst von: A. Nabhan, B. Ishak, W. I. Steudel, S. Ramadhan, O. Steimer

Erschienen in: European Spine Journal | Ausgabe 6/2011

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Disc prostheses have been designed to restore and maintain cervical segmental motion and reduce the accelerated degeneration of the adjacent level. There is no knowledge about the reaction of the neighboured asymptomatic segments after implantation of prostheses or fusion. The effects of these procedures to segmental movement of the uninvolved vertebrae have not been subjected to studies so far. The objective of this study was to compare the segmental motion following cervical disc replacement versus fusion and the correlation to the clinical outcome. Another aim was to compare the segmental motion of the asymptomatic segments above the treated ones and to compare both with Roentgen stereometric analysis (RSA) including the asymptomatic segments. 20 patients with one-level cervical radiculopathy scheduled for surgery were randomized to arthroplasty (10 patients, study group) or anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (10 patients, control group). Clinical results were evaluated using Visual Analogue Scale and Neck Disability Index. RSA was performed immediately postoperative, after 6 and 12 months. The adjacent segment showed a significantly higher segmental motion in all three-dimensional axes in comparison to the segment treated with prostheses (P < 0.05). In the fusion group the segmental motion of the adjacent segment was significantly higher in all three-dimensional axes (P < 0.05) at each examination time. When the adjacent level of both groups is compared, the fusion group could show a higher segmental motion in all three-dimensional axes, but without significant difference (P > 0.05) 1 year after surgery. Regarding the clinical results, there was no significant difference in pain relief between both groups (P > 0.05). In conclusion, the adjacent segment could show a higher segmental motion, when compared with the segment either treated with prostheses or fusion. There was no significant difference in segmental motion adjacent to prosthesis or fusion. Clinical results did also show no significant difference in pain relief between both groups.

Aota Y, Kumano K, Hirabayashi S (1995) Postfusion instability at the adjacent segments after rigid pedicle screw fixation for degenerative lumbar spinal disorders. J Spinal Disord 8:464–473PubMedCrossRef

Bertagnoli R, Yue JJ, Pfeiffer F, Fenk-Mayer A, Lawrence JP, Kershaw T et al (2005) Early results after prodisc-c cervical disc replacement. J Neurosurg Spine 2:403–410PubMedCrossRef

Boden SD, Wiesel SW (1990) Lumbosacral segmental motion in normal individuals. Have we been measuring instability properly? Spine 15:571–576PubMedCrossRef

Cherubino P, Benazzo F, Borromeo U, Perle S (1990) Degenerative arthritis of the adjacent spinal joints following anterior cervical spinal fusion: clinicoradiologic and statistical correlations. Ital J Orthop Traumatol 16:533–543PubMed

Cloward RB (1958) The anterior approach for removal of ruptured cervical disks. J Neurosurg 15:602–617PubMedCrossRef

Dohler JR, Kahn MR, Hughes SP (1985) Instability of the cervical spine after anterior interbody fusion. A study on its incidence and clinical significance in 21 patients. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 104:247–250PubMedCrossRef

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 27:2431–2434PubMedCrossRef

Etebar S, Cahill DW (1999) Riskfactors for adjacent-segment failure following lumbar fixation with rigid instrumentation for degenerative instability. J Neurosurg 90:163–169PubMed

Fuller DA, Kirkpatrick JS, Emery SE et al (1998) A kinematic study of the cervical spine before and after segmental arthrodesis. Spine 23:1649–1656PubMedCrossRef

10.

Goffin J, Geusens E, Vantomme N et al (2004) Long-term followup after interbody fusion of the cervical spine. J Spinal Disord Tech 17:79–85PubMedCrossRef

11.

Goffin J, van Loon J, Van Calenbergh F et al (1995) Long-term results after ante rior cervical fusion and osteosynthetic stabilization for fractures and/or dislocations of the cervical spine. J Spinal Disord 8:500–508PubMedCrossRef

12.

Goffin J, Casey A, Kehr P, Liebig K, Lind B, Logroscino C et al (2003) Preliminary clinical experience with the Bryan cervical disc prosthesis. Neurosurgery 53:785–786CrossRef

13.

Goffin J, Van Calenbergh F, Van Loon J, Casey A, Kehr P, Liebig K et al (2003) Intermediate follow-up after treatment of degenerative disc disease with the Bryan cervical disc prothesis: single-level and bi-level. Spine 28:2673–2678PubMedCrossRef

14.

Gore DR, Gardner GM, Sepic SB et al (1986) Roentgenographic findings following anterior cervical fusion. Skeletal Radiol 15:556–559PubMedCrossRef

15.

Gore DR, Sepic SB (1998) Anterior discectomy and fusion for painful cervical disc disease: a report of 50 patients with an average follow-up of 21 years. Spine 23:2047–2051PubMedCrossRef

16.

Hamill CL, Simmons ED Jr (1997) Interobserver variability in grading lumbar fusions. J Spinal Disord 10:387–390PubMedCrossRef

17.

Hilibrand AS, Carlson GD, Palumbo MA, Jones PK, Bohlman HH (1999) Radiculopathy and myelopathy at segments adjacent to the site of a previous anterior cervical arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 81:519–528PubMed

18.

Hilibrand AS, Yoo JU, Carlson GD, Bohlman HH (1997) The success of anterior cervical arthrodesis adjacent to a previous fusion. Spine 22:1574–1579PubMedCrossRef

19.

Hino H, Abumi K, Kanayama M et al (1999) Dynamic motion analysis of normal and unstable cervical spines using cineradiography. An in vivo study. Spine 24:163–188PubMedCrossRef

20.

Johnsson R, Selvik G, Stromqvist B et al (1990) Mobility of the lower lumbar spine after posterolateral fusion determined by roentgen stereophotogrammetric analysis. Spine 15:347–350PubMedCrossRef

21.

Karrholm J (1989) Roentgen stereophotogrammetry: review of orthopedic applications. Acta Orthop Scand 60:491–503PubMedCrossRef

22.

Lee S, Harris KG, Goel VK et al (1994) Spinal motion after cervical fusion: in vivo assessment with roentgen stereophotogrammetry. Spine 19:2336–2342PubMed

23.

Leivseth G, Frobin W, Brinckmann P (2005) Congenital cervical block vertebrae are associated with caudally adjacent discs. Clin Biomech 20:669–674CrossRef

24.

Lunsford LD, Bissonette DJ, Jannetta PJ, Sheptak PE, Z o rub DS (1980) Anterior surgery for cervical disc disease—part 1: treatment of lateral cervical disc herniation in 253 cases. J Neurosurg 53:1–11PubMedCrossRef

25.

Maiman DJ, Kumaresan S, Yoganandan N et al (1999) Biomechanical effect of anterior cervical spine fusion on adjacent segments. Biomed Mater Eng 9:27–38PubMed

26.

Matsunaga S, Kabayama S, Yamamoto T et al (1999) Strain on intervertebral discs after anterior cervical decompression and fusion. Spine 24:670–675PubMedCrossRef

27.

McAfee PC, Boden SD, Brantigan JW et al (2001) Symposium: a critical discrepancy—a criteria of successful arthrodesis following interbody spinal fusions. Spine 26:320–334PubMedCrossRef

28.

McGrory BJ, Klassen RA (1994) Arthrodesis of the cervical spine for fractures and dislocations in children and adolescents: a long-term follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 76:1606–1616PubMed

29.

Nabhan A, Ahlhelm F, Pitzen T, Steudel WI, Jung J, Shariat K, Steimer O, Bachelier F, Pape D (2006) Disc replacement using Pro-Disc C versus fusion: a prospective randomised and controlled radiographic and clinical study. Eur Spine J 16:423–430PubMedCrossRef

30.

Nabhan A, Ahlhelm F, Shariat K, Pitzen T, Steimer O, Steudel WI, Pape D (2007) The ProDisc-C prosthesis: clinical and radiological experience 1 year after surgery. Spine 32(18):1935–1941PubMedCrossRef

31.

Panjabi M, Chang D, Dvorak J (1992) An analysis of errors in kinematic parameters associated with in vivo functional radiographs. Spine 17:200–205PubMedCrossRef

32.

Pickett GE, Sekhon LH, Sears WR, Duggal N (2006) Complications with cervical arthroplasty. J Neurosurg Spine 4:98–105PubMedCrossRef

33.

Pospiech J, Stolke D, Wilke HJ, Claes LE (1999) Intradiscal pressure recordings in the cervical spine. Neurosurgery 44:379–385PubMedCrossRef

34.

Pospiech J, Wilke HJ, Claes LE, Stolke D (1996) Intradiscal pressure forces on cervical intervertebral discs in physiologic and pathologic conditions. In vitro study (German). Langenbecks Arch Chir 381:303–308PubMedCrossRef

35.

Reitman CA, Hipp JA, Nguyen L, Esses SI (2004) Changes in segmental intervertebral motion adjacent to cervical arthrodesis: a prospective study. Spine 29:E221–E226PubMedCrossRef

36.

Robertson JT, Papadopoulou 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 3:417–423PubMedCrossRef

37.

Robinson R, Smith G (1995) Anterolateral cervical disc removal and interbody fusion for cervical disc syndrome. Bull Johns Hopkins Hosp 96:223–224

38.

Selvik G, Alberius P, Aronson AS (1983) A roentgen stereophotogrammetric system, construction, calibration and technical accuracy. Acta Radiol Diagn (Stockh) 24:343–352

39.

Selvik G (1990) Roentgen stereophotogrammetric analysis. Acta Radiol 31:113–126PubMedCrossRef

40.

Shaffer WO, Spratt KF, Weinstein J et al (1990) Volvo Award in clinical sciences. The consistency and accuracy of roentgenograms for measuring sagittal translation in the lumbar vertebral motion segment. An experimental model. Spine 15:741–750PubMed

41.

Takeshima T, Omokawa S, Takaoka T, Araki M, Ueda Y, Takakura Y (2002) Sagittal alignment of cervical flexion and extension: lateral radiograph analysis. Spine 27:E348–E355PubMedCrossRef

42.

Vaijayantee K, Vedantam R, Lakshminarayan R et al (2004) Accelerated spondylotic changes adjacent to the fused segment following central cervical corpectomy: magnetic resonance imaging study evidence. J Neurosurg Spine 100:1CrossRef

43.

Weinhoffer SL, Guyer RD, Herbert M et al (1995) Intradiscal pressure measurements above an instrumented fusion: a cadaveric study. Spine 20:526–531PubMedCrossRef

44.

Wellborn CC, Sturm PF, Hatch RS et al (2000) Intraobserver reproducibility and interobserver reliability of cervical spine measurements. J Pediatr Orthop 20:66–67PubMedCrossRef

45.

Wigfield C, Gill S, Nelson R et al (2002) Influence of an artificial cervical joint compared with fusion on adjacent-level motion in the treatment of degenerative cervical disc disease. J Neurosurg 96:17–21PubMed

46.

Wigfield C, Skrzypiec D, Jackowski A, Adams MA (2003) Internal stress distribution in cervical intervertebral discs: the influence of an artificial cervical joint and simulated anterior interbody fusion. J Spinal Disord Tech 16:441–449PubMedCrossRef

47.

Wu W, Thomas KA, Hedlund R et al (1996) Degenerative changes following anterior cervical discectomy and fusion evaluated by fast spin-echo MR imaging. Acta Radiol 37:614–617PubMedCrossRef

Titel: Assessment of adjacent-segment mobility after cervical disc replacement versus fusion: RCT with 1 year’s results
verfasst von: A. Nabhan
B. Ishak
W. I. Steudel
S. Ramadhan
O. Steimer
Publikationsdatum: 01.06.2011
Verlag: Springer-Verlag
Erschienen in: European Spine Journal / Ausgabe 6/2011
Print ISSN: 0940-6719
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-0932
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-010-1588-2

Arthropedia

Grundlagenwissen der Arthroskopie und Gelenkchirurgie. Erweitert durch Fallbeispiele, Videos und Abbildungen.
» Jetzt entdecken

Neu im Fachgebiet Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

25.04.2024 | Hypertonie | Nachrichten

Update Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Springer Medizin

Assessment of adjacent-segment mobility after cervical disc replacement versus fusion: RCT with 1 year’s results

Abstract

Arthropedia

Neu im Fachgebiet Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Therapiestart mit Blutdrucksenkern erhöht Frakturrisiko

Ärztliche Empathie hilft gegen Rückenschmerzen

Stereotaktische Radiatio schlägt konventionelle Bestrahlung

Vorsicht mit hohen NSAR-Dosen bei ankylosierender Spondylitis!

Update Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 6/2011

Pedicle screw insertion accuracy with different assisted methods: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies

Triggered electromyography for placement of thoracic pedicle screws: is it reliable?

Percutaneous instrumentation of the cervical and cervico-thoracic spine using pedicle screws: preliminary clinical results and analysis of accuracy

Mayfield head clamp and intracranial epidural hematoma

Optimal entry points and trajectories for cervical pedicle screw placement into subaxial cervical vertebrae

Freehand determination of the trajectory angle for cervical lateral mass screws: how accurate is it?

Arthropedia

Neu im Fachgebiet Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Therapiestart mit Blutdrucksenkern erhöht Frakturrisiko

Ärztliche Empathie hilft gegen Rückenschmerzen

Stereotaktische Radiatio schlägt konventionelle Bestrahlung

Vorsicht mit hohen NSAR-Dosen bei ankylosierender Spondylitis!

Update Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie