Skip to main content
main-content

07.09.2018 | Original Article | Ausgabe 11/2018

European Spine Journal 11/2018

Motion analysis of dynamic cervical implant stabilization versus anterior discectomy and fusion: a retrospective analysis of 70 cases

Zeitschrift:
European Spine Journal > Ausgabe 11/2018
Autoren:
Zhonghai Li, Huarong Wu, Jin Chu, Mozhen Liu, Shuxun Hou, Shunzhi Yu, Tiesheng Hou
Wichtige Hinweise

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s00586-018-5755-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Zhonghai Li, Huarong Wu and Jin Chu contributed equally to the manuscript and should be considered co-first authors.

Abstract

Purpose

Retrospective kinematic analysis of treated level, adjacent levels, and overall cervical spine after single-level dynamic cervical implant (DCI) stabilization versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF).

Methods

Between June 2009 and March 2013, 70 consecutive patients with a symptomatic single-level cervical degenerative disk disease (DDD) were enrolled in this study and divided into DCI (n = 35) group and ACDF (n = 35) group. All cases were followed up for more than 5 years. The study compared perioperative parameters; clinical outcomes; and radiological parameters. Kinematic analysis included range of motion (ROM) of treated level and adjacent level, overall ROM (C2–C7), and changes in adjacent disk spaces.

Results

There were no significant differences between the DCI group and ACDF group in terms of improvement in the SF-36, VAS, NDI, and JOA scores. DCI stabilization resulted in better ROM of C2–C7 and the treated level than ACDF did. The ROM of treated level decreased significantly at 24 months after surgery and last follow-up in the DCI group, and the C2–C7 ROM showed different degrees of reduction after the 24 months after surgery. Radiological evidence of adjacent segment degeneration (ASD) at last follow-up was observed in 4/22 patients (18.2%) in the DCI group and 5/23 patients (21.7%) in the ACDF group which was not a significant difference between groups (p > 0.05).

Conclusions

DCI stabilization for the treatment of cervical DDD cannot preserve the normal kinematics of the cervical spine for a long time, especially the treated level. DCI stabilization cannot decrease the risk of ASD compared with ACDF.

Graphical abstract

These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

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

★ PREMIUM-INHALT
e.Med Interdisziplinär

Mit e.Med Interdisziplinär erhalten Sie Zugang zu allen CME-Fortbildungen und Fachzeitschriften auf SpringerMedizin.de. Zusätzlich können Sie eine Zeitschrift Ihrer Wahl in gedruckter Form beziehen – ohne Aufpreis.

Jetzt bestellen und im ersten Jahr 100€ sparen!Jetzt e.Med zum Sonderpreis bestellen!

Weitere Produktempfehlungen anzeigen
Zusatzmaterial
Supplementary material 1 (PPTX 573 kb)
586_2018_5755_MOESM1_ESM.pptx
Literatur
Über diesen Artikel

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 11/2018

European Spine Journal 11/2018 Zur Ausgabe
  1. Sie können e.Med Orthopädie & Unfallchirurgie 14 Tage kostenlos testen (keine Print-Zeitschrift enthalten). Der Test läuft automatisch und formlos aus. Es kann nur einmal getestet werden.


 

Neu im Fachgebiet Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Mail Icon II Newsletter

Bestellen Sie unseren kostenlosen Newsletter Update Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie und bleiben Sie gut informiert – ganz bequem per eMail.

Bildnachweise