Adjacent segment disease and C-ADR: promises fulfilled?

 

 Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

Study design: Systematic review.

Clinical question: Do the rates and timing of adjacent segment disease (ASD) differ between cervical total disc arthroplasty (C-ADR) and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) in patients treated for cervical degenerative disc disease?

Methods: A systematic search of MEDLINE/PubMed and bibliographies of key articles was done to identify studies with long-term follow-up for symptomatic and/or radiographic ASD comparing C-ADR with fusion for degenerative disc disease of the cervical spine. The focus was on studies with longer follow-up (48–60 months) of primary US Food and Drug Administration trials of Prestige ST, Prodisc-C, and Bryan devices as available. Trials of other discs with a minimum of 24 months follow-up were considered for inclusion. Studies evaluating lordosis/angle changes at adjacent segments and case series were excluded.

Results: From 14 citations identified, four reports from three randomized controlled trials and four nonrandomized studies are summarized. Risk differences between C-ADR and ACF for symptomatic ASD were 1.5%–2.3% and were not significant across RCT reports. Time to development of ASD did not significantly differ between treatments. Rates of radiographic ASD were variable. No meaningful comparison of ASD rates based on disc design was possible. No statistical differences in adjacent segment range of motion were noted between treatment groups.

Conclusion: Our analysis reveals that, to date, there is no evidence that arthroplasty decreases ASD compared with ACDF; the promise of arthroplasty decreasing ASD has not been fulfilled.

• REFERENCES

• 1 Hilibrand AS, Carlson GD, Palumbo MA et al. 1999; Radiculopathy and myelopathy at segments adjacent to the site of a previous anterior cervical arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg 81 (4) 519-528
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 2 Anderson PA, Sasso RC, Riew D. 2008; Comparison of adverse events between the Bryan artificial cervical disc and anterior cervical arthrodesis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33 (12) 1305-1312
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 3 Burkus JK, Haid RW, Traynelis VC et al. 2010; Long-term clinical and radiographic outcomes of cervical disc replacement with the Prestige disc: results from a prospective randomized controlled clinical trial. J Neurosurg Spine 13 (3) 308-318
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 4 Mummaneni PV, Burkus JK, Haid RW et al. 2007; Clinical and radiographic analysis of cervical disc arthroplasty compared with allograft fusion: a randomized controlled trial. J Neurosurg Spine 6 (3) 198-209
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 5 Sasso RC, Anderson PA, Riew D et al. 2011; Results of cervical arthroplasty compared with anterior discectomy and fusion: four-year clinical outcomes in a prospective, randomized controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg 93 (18) 1684-1692
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 6 Coric D, Nunley PD, Guyer RD et al. 2011; Prospective, randomized, multicenter study of cervical arthroplasty: 269 patients from the Kineflex|C artificial disc investigational device exemption study with a minimum 2-year follow-up: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 15 (4) 348-358
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 7 Garrido BJ, Taha TA, Sasso RC. 2010; Clinical outcomes of Bryan cervical disc arthroplasty: a prospective, randomized, controlled, single site trial with 48-month follow-up. J Spinal Disord Tech 23 (6) 367
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 8 Maldonado CV, Paz RD, Martin CB. 2011; Adjacent-level degeneration after cervical disc arthroplasty versus fusion. Eur Spine J 20 (Suppl. 03) 403-407
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 Park SB, Jahng TA, Chung CK. 2011; Remodeling of adjacent spinal alignments following cervical arthroplasty and anterior discectomy and fusion. Eur Spine J Epub ahead of print
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 10 Coric D, Cassis J, Carew JD et al. 2010; Prospective study of cervical arthroplasty in 98 patients involved in 1 of 3 separate investigational device exemption studies from a single investigational site with a minimum 2-year follow-up: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 13 (6) 715-721
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 11 Jawahar A, Cavanaugh DA, Kerr EJ et al. 2010; Total disc arthroplasty does not affect the incidence of adjacent segment degeneration in cervical spine: results of 93 patients in three prospective randomized clinical trials. Spine J 10 (12) 1043-1048
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 12 Nunley PD, Jawahar A, Kerr EJ et al. 2011; Factors affecting the incidence of symptomatic adjacent level disease in cervical spine after total disc arthroplasty: 2–4 years follow-up of 3 prospective randomized trials. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Epub ahead of print
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 13 Auerbach JD, Anakwenze OA, Milby AH et al. 2011; Segmental contribution towards total cervical range of motion: a comparison of cervical disc arthroplasty and fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 36 (25) E1593-1599
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 14 Kelly MP, Mok JM, Frisch RF et al. 2011; Adjacent segment motion after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion versus Prodisc-c cervical total disk arthroplasty: analysis from a randomized, controlled trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 36 (15) 1171-1179
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 15 Sasso RC, Best NM, Metcalf NH et al. 2008; Motion analysis of bryan cervical disc arthroplasty versus anterior discectomy and fusion: results from a prospective, randomized, multicenter, clinical trial. J Spinal Disord Tech 21: 393-399
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar