Analysis of the Factors That Could Predict Segmental Range of Motion After Cervical Artificial Disk Replacement: A 7-Year Follow-up Study

Study Design: A retrospective cohort study. Objective: To identify the potential preoperative factors and surgical technique factors that are associated with long-term range of motion (ROM) after surgery. Further, this article aimed to guide selection of patients with cervical artificial disk replacement and a fine surgical technique. Summary of Background Data: Segmental ROM is the most important parameter concerning cervical kinematics after a cervical artificial disk replacement. There are few researches regarding the influencing factors on postoperative ROM, and consistent results have not yet been reported. Methods: The cohort comprised a total of 68 disks implanted into 57 patients who were retrospectively analyzed. The mean follow-up period was 84.1 months. Segmental ROM and other useful parameters were measured using lateral neutral, extension, and flexion radiographs, which were obtained preoperatively, 3 months after surgery, and at last follow-up. Preoperative CT and clinical assessment were also used. To find out associated factors, the patients were divided into 2 groups according to the segmental ROM at last follow-up. Results: After surgery, the clinical outcomes were satisfactory. The segmental ROM at last follow-up (7.8±4.3 degrees) was preserved without significant change from preoperative ROM (8.8±3.8 degrees). The patients who had a better segmental ROM after surgery were found to have a higher preoperative segmental ROM, a younger age, a better disk insertion angle, and disk insertion depth. These 4 factors were identified as independent risk factors (P=0.027, 0.017, 0.036, and 0.046, respectively) for long-term ROM. Conclusions: The postoperative long-term, segmental ROM was well preserved and found to be affected by the preoperative segmental ROM, patient’s age, disk insertion angle, and disk insertion depth.

[1]  Zhenxiang Zhang,et al.  Clinical and radiographic results of Bryan cervical total disc replacement: 4-year outcomes in a prospective study , 2013, Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery.

[2]  Zhimin He,et al.  Clinical and radiological results of total disc replacement in the cervical spine with preoperative reducible kyphosis , 2013, International Orthopaedics.

[3]  D. Ding,et al.  Cervical disk arthroplasty: patient selection. , 2012, Clinical neurosurgery.

[4]  Tsung-Hsi Tu,et al.  The effects of carpentry on heterotopic ossification and mobility in cervical arthroplasty: determination by computed tomography with a minimum 2-year follow-up: Clinical article. , 2012, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[5]  M. Fink,et al.  Analysis of in vivo kinematics of 3 different cervical devices: Bryan disc, ProDisc-C, and Prestige LP disc. , 2011, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[6]  Daniel K. Park,et al.  Index and Adjacent Level Kinematics After Cervical Disc Replacement and Anterior Fusion: In Vivo Quantitative Radiographic Analysis , 2011, Spine.

[7]  J. Vital,et al.  Eight-Year Clinical and Radiological Follow-Up of the Bryan Cervical Disc Arthroplasty , 2011, Spine.

[8]  J. Vital,et al.  Comparison between single- and multi-level patients: clinical and radiological outcomes 2 years after cervical disc replacement , 2011, European Spine Journal.

[9]  W. Tian,et al.  Clinical and radiographic results of cervical artificial disc arthroplasty: over three years follow-up cohort study. , 2010, Chinese medical journal.

[10]  Zhongqiang Chen,et al.  Application of cervical arthroplasty with Bryan cervical disc: long-term X-ray and magnetic resonance imaging follow-up results. , 2010, Chinese medical journal.

[11]  P. Suetens,et al.  Longitudinal Prospective Long‐term Radiographic Follow‐up After Treatment of Single‐Level Cervical Disk Disease With the Bryan Cervical Disc , 2010, Neurosurgery.

[12]  S. Chung,et al.  The factors that influence the postoperative segmental range of motion after cervical artificial disc replacement. , 2010, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[13]  S. Kim,et al.  Analysis of factors that may influence range of motion after cervical disc arthroplasty. , 2010, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[14]  P. Demaerel,et al.  Postoperative Segmental Malalignment After Surgery With the Bryan Cervical Disc Prosthesis: Is it Related to the Mechanics and Design of the Prosthesis? , 2010, Journal of spinal disorders & techniques.

[15]  Guoqi Li,et al.  Translation and Validation Study of Chinese Versions of the Neck Disability Index and the Neck Pain and Disability Scale , 2010, Spine.

[16]  J. Bendo,et al.  Effect of intervertebral disc height on postoperative motion and clinical outcomes after Prodisc-C cervical disc replacement. , 2009, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[17]  L. Denaro,et al.  Cervical spinal disc replacement. , 2009, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[18]  R. Delamarter,et al.  Results of the prospective, randomized, controlled multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study of the ProDisc-C total disc replacement versus anterior discectomy and fusion for the treatment of 1-level symptomatic cervical disc disease. , 2009, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[19]  D. Riew,et al.  Comparison of BRYAN Cervical Disc Arthroplasty With Anterior Cervical Decompression and Fusion: Clinical and Radiographic Results of a Randomized, Controlled, Clinical Trial , 2009, Spine.

[20]  B. Depreitere,et al.  Qualitative and quantitative assessment of degeneration of cervical intervertebral discs and facet joints , 2009, European Spine Journal.

[21]  F. Galbusera,et al.  Biomechanical studies on cervical total disc arthroplasty: a literature review. , 2008, Clinical biomechanics.

[22]  J. Auerbach,et al.  The prevalence of indications and contraindications to cervical total disc replacement. , 2008, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[23]  P. Anderson,et al.  Motion Analysis of Bryan Cervical Disc Arthroplasty Versus Anterior Discectomy and Fusion: Results From a Prospective, Randomized, Multicenter, Clinical Trial , 2008, Journal of spinal disorders & techniques.

[24]  S. Yamada,et al.  In Vivo Quantitative Autoradiographic Analysis of Brain Muscarinic Receptor Occupancy by Antimuscarinic Agents for Overactive Bladder Treatment , 2008, Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics.

[25]  Joseph D. Smucker,et al.  Artificial Disc Versus Fusion: A Prospective, Randomized Study With 2-Year Follow-up on 99 Patients , 2007, Spine.

[26]  Regis W Haid,et al.  Clinical and radiographic analysis of cervical disc arthroplasty compared with allograft fusion: a randomized controlled clinical trial. , 2007, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[27]  S. Yi,et al.  Modified Techniques to Prevent Sagittal Imbalance After Cervical Arthroplasty , 2007, Spine.

[28]  W I Steudel,et al.  Segmental kinematics and adjacent level degeneration following disc replacement versus fusion: RCT with three years of follow-up. , 2007, Journal of long-term effects of medical implants.

[29]  S. Kim,et al.  Effects of a cervical disc prosthesis on maintaining sagittal alignment of the functional spinal unit and overall sagittal balance of the cervical spine , 2007, European Spine Journal.

[30]  A. Nabhan,et al.  Disc replacement using Pro-Disc C versus fusion: a prospective randomised and controlled radiographic and clinical study , 2007, European Spine Journal.

[31]  S. Yi,et al.  Clinical and radiological results following cervical arthroplasty , 2006, Acta Neurochirurgica.

[32]  S. Garfin,et al.  Cervical Disc Replacement , 2005, Spine.

[33]  G. Pickett,et al.  Kinematic Analysis of the Cervical Spine Following Implantation of an Artificial Cervical Disc , 2005, Spine.

[34]  P. McAfee The indications for lumbar and cervical disc replacement. , 2004, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[35]  W. Sears,et al.  Effects of a cervical disc prosthesis on segmental and cervical spine alignment. , 2004, Neurosurgical focus.

[36]  Kazuo Yonenobu,et al.  Interobserver and Intraobserver Reliability of the Japanese Orthopaedic Association Scoring System for Evaluation of Cervical Compression Myelopathy , 2001, Spine.

[37]  A. White,et al.  Biomechanical analysis of clinical stability in the cervical spine. , 1975, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[38]  G. Odom,et al.  Cervical disk lesions. , 1958, Journal of the American Medical Association.