Comparison of the Clinical and Radiographic Results Between Cervical Artificial Disk Replacement and Anterior Cervical Fusion: A 6-Year Prospective Nonrandomized Comparative Study

Study Design: Prospective nonrandomized comparative study. Objective: To compare the long-term clinical and radiographic results of cervical artificial disk replacement (CADR) and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), and to provide our evidence if CADR could reduce adjacent segment degeneration (ASD). Summary of Background Data: CADR is widely used in spine surgery today. Despite the short-term results of it having been ascertained, the long-term results are still under observation. Meanwhile it is still debatable if CADR could reduce ASD in the long run. Materials and Methods: Sixty-three patients with cervical myelopathy who underwent CADR (28) or ACDF (35) with a minimum follow-up of 68 months were included. Japanese Orthopaedic Association score, neck disability index, and Odom’s scale were used to evaluate the clinical outcomes. Radiographs, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging were used to evaluate the radiographic outcomes. Results: Both CADR and ACDF groups showed significant improvement on Japanese Orthopaedic Association scores and neck disability index, and there was no significant difference between the 2 groups. The sagittal alignment was maintained for both the groups. The C2–C7 range of motion had no significant change for CADR group, whereas it significantly decreased for ACDF group. The range of motion at index level of CADR patients decreased from 9.5±3.7 degrees before surgery to 7.0±3.0 degrees at 3 months after surgery (P<0.001), and it was maintained to 6.6±4.1 degrees at last follow-up without significant decrease (P=0.448). We used radiographic data to evaluate ASD and we found the incidence of ASD was significantly lower for CADR group than ACDF group. Conclusions: The clinical and radiographic results of CADR over 6-year follow-up are basically satisfying. Compared with ACDF, CADR could better preserve physiological motion and biomechanics of cervical spine, and reduce the occurrence of ASD.

[1]  B. Cunningham,et al.  Biomechanical fixation properties of cortical versus transpedicular screws in the osteoporotic lumbar spine: an in vitro human cadaveric model. , 2016, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[2]  S. Hukuda,et al.  Kyphotic malalignment after anterior cervical fusion is one of the factors promoting the degenerative process in adjacent intervertebral levels , 2001, European Spine Journal.

[3]  B. Cunningham,et al.  A Meta-Analysis of Comparative Outcomes Following Cervical Arthroplasty or Anterior Cervical Fusion: Results From 4 Prospective Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trials and Up to 1226 Patients , 2012, Spine.

[4]  Ming Li,et al.  Randomized, Controlled, Multicenter, Clinical Trial Comparing BRYAN Cervical Disc Arthroplasty With Anterior Cervical Decompression and Fusion in China , 2012, Spine.

[5]  P. Nunley,et al.  Factors Affecting the Incidence of Symptomatic Adjacent-Level Disease in Cervical Spine After Total Disc Arthroplasty: 2- to 4-Year Follow-up of 3 Prospective Randomized Trials , 2012, Spine.

[6]  W. Yuan,et al.  Prevalence of heterotopic ossification after cervical total disc arthroplasty: a meta-analysis , 2012, European Spine Journal.

[7]  P. Anderson,et al.  Results of cervical arthroplasty compared with anterior discectomy and fusion: four-year clinical outcomes in a prospective, randomized controlled trial. , 2011, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[8]  Chen Zhongqiang,et al.  Sagittal Alignment Comparison of Bryan Disc Arthroplasty With ProDisc-C Arthroplasty: A Prospective, Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial , 2011, Journal of spinal disorders & techniques.

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

[10]  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.

[11]  Jung-Hoon Lee,et al.  Analysis of the incidence and clinical effect of the heterotopic ossification in a single-level cervical artificial disc replacement. , 2010, The spine journal.

[12]  S. Yi,et al.  Difference in Occurrence of Heterotopic Ossification According to Prosthesis Type in the Cervical Artificial Disc Replacement , 2010, Spine.

[13]  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.

[14]  P. Suchomel,et al.  Clinical results and development of heterotopic ossification in total cervical disc replacement during a 4-year follow-up , 2010, European Spine Journal.

[15]  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.

[16]  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.

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

[18]  Jeffrey C. Wang,et al.  Reliability of a Magnetic Resonance Imaging-based Grading System for Cervical Intervertebral Disc Degeneration , 2008, Journal of spinal disorders & techniques.

[19]  K. Yonenobu,et al.  An outcome measure for patients with cervical myelopathy: Japanese Orthopaedic Association Cervical Myelopathy Evaluation Questionnaire (JOACMEQ): Part 1 , 2007, Journal of orthopaedic science : official journal of the Japanese Orthopaedic Association.

[20]  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.

[21]  J. Robertson,et al.  Assessment of adjacent-segment disease in patients treated with cervical fusion or arthroplasty: a prospective 2-year study. , 2005, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[22]  Bryan W Cunningham,et al.  Adjacent Level Intradiscal Pressure and Segmental Kinematics Following A Cervical Total Disc Arthroplasty: An In Vitro Human Cadaveric Model , 2005, Spine.

[23]  J. P. Johnson,et al.  Sagittal alignment and the Bryan cervical artificial disc. , 2004, Neurosurgical focus.

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

[25]  Jan Goffin,et al.  Long-Term Follow-Up After Interbody Fusion of the Cervical Spine , 2004, Journal of spinal disorders & techniques.

[26]  A. Shad,et al.  Anterior correction of cervical kyphotic deformity: effects on myelopathy, neck pain, and sagittal alignment. , 2004, Journal of neurosurgery.

[27]  Bryan W Cunningham,et al.  Biomechanical Evaluation of Total Disc Replacement Arthroplasty: An In Vitro Human Cadaveric Model , 2003, Spine.

[28]  B. Cunningham,et al.  Classification of Heterotopic Ossification (HO) in Artificial Disk Replacement , 2003, Journal of spinal disorders & techniques.

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

[30]  A. Hilibrand,et al.  Radiculopathy and myelopathy at segments adjacent to the site of a previous anterior cervical arthrodesis. , 1999, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[31]  H. Baba,et al.  Late radiographic findings after anterior cervical fusion for spondylotic myeloradiculopathy. , 1993, Spine.

[32]  S. Mior,et al.  The Neck Disability Index: a study of reliability and validity. , 1991, Journal of manipulative and physiological therapeutics.

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