Effects of a cervical disc prosthesis on maintaining sagittal alignment of the functional spinal unit and overall sagittal balance of the cervical spine

The object of this study is to review the early clinical results and radiographic outcomes following insertion of the Bryan Cervical Disc Prosthesis (Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Memphis, TN), together with its effect on maintaining sagittal alignment of the functional spinal unit (FSU) and overall sagittal balance of the cervical spine for the treatment of single-level or two-level symptomatic disc disease. Forty-seven patients with symptomatic single or two-level cervical disc disease who received the Bryan Cervical Artificial Disc were reviewed prospectively. A total of 55 Bryan disc were placed in 47 patients. A single-level procedure was performed in 39 patients and a two-level procedure in the other eight. Radiographic and clinical assessments were made preoperatively and at 1.5, 3, 6, 9, 12, and 18 and up to 33 months postoperatively. Mean follow-up duration was 24 months, ranging from 13 to 33 months. Periods were categorized as early follow up (1.5–3 months) and late follow up (6–33 months). The visual analogue scale (VAS), neck disability index(NDI), Odom’s criteria were used to assess pain and clinical outcomes. Static and dynamic radiographs were measured by hand and computer to determine the range of motion (ROM), the angle of the functional segmental unit (FSU), and the overall cervical alignment (C2–7 Cobb angle). With all of these data, we evaluated the change of the preoperative lordosis (or kyphosis) of the FSU and Overall sagittal balance of the cervical spine during the follow-up period. There was a statistically significant improvement in the VAS score from 7.0 ± 2.6 to 2.0 ± 1.5 (paired-t test, P = 0.000), and in the NDI from 21.5 ± 5.5 to 4.5 ± 3.9 (paired-t test P = 0.000). All of the patients were satisfied with the surgical results by Odom’s criteria. The postoperative ROM of the implanted level was preserved without significant difference from preoperative ROM of the operated level. Only 36% of patients with a preoperative lordotic sagittal orientation of the FSU were able to maintain lordosis following surgery. However, the overall sagittal alignment of the cervical spine was preserved in 86% of cases at the final follow up. Interestingly, preoperatively kyphotic FSU resulted in lordotic FSU in 13% of patients during the late follow-up, and preoperatively kyphotic overall cervical alignment resulted in lordosis in 33% of the patients postoperatively. Clinical results are encouraging, with significant improvement seen in the Bryan Cervical Artificial disc. The Bryan disc preserves motion of the FSU. Although the preoperative lordosis (or kyphosis) of the FSU could not always be maintained during the follow-up period, the overall sagittal balance of the cervical spine was usually preserved.

[1]  Denis J. DiAngelo,et al.  Biomechanical Testing of an Artificial Cervical Joint and an Anterior Cervical Plate , 2003, Journal of spinal disorders & techniques.

[2]  L. Claes,et al.  Intradiscal pressure recordings in the cervical spine. , 1999, Neurosurgery.

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

[4]  S. L. Griffith,et al.  Intradiscal Pressure Measurements Above an Instrumented Fusion: A Cadaveric Study , 1995, Spine.

[5]  R. B. Cloward THE TREATMENT OF RUPTURED LUMBAR INTERVERTEBRAL DISC BY VERTEBRAL BODY FUSION. iii. METHOD OF USE OF BANKED BONE , 1952, Annals of surgery.

[6]  Ricardo Vieira Botelho,et al.  Preliminary clinical experience with the Bryan cervical disc prosthesis. , 2003, Neurosurgery.

[7]  E. Simmons Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. , 1969, Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine.

[8]  K. Follett Comparison of pallidal and subthalamic deep brain stimulation for the treatment of levodopa-induced dyskinesias. , 2004, Neurosurgical focus.

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

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

[11]  F. Calenbergh,et al.  Long-term results after anterior cervical fusion and osteosynthetic stabilization for fractures and/or dislocations of the cervical spine. , 1995, Journal of spinal disorders.

[12]  K. Thuomas,et al.  Degenerative Changes following Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Evaluated by Fast Spin-Echo MR Imaging , 1996, Acta radiologica.

[13]  S. Hughes,et al.  Instability of the cervical spine after anterior interbody fusion , 2004, Archives of orthopaedic and traumatic surgery.

[14]  D. Clements,et al.  Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion , 1990, Spine.

[15]  A. Abou-Madawi,et al.  Anterior Cervical Discectomy (ACD) Versus Anterior Cervical Fusion (ACF), Clinical and Radiological Outcome Study , 1999, Acta Neurochirurgica.

[16]  R. B. Cloward The anterior approach for removal of ruptured cervical disks. , 1958, Journal of neurosurgery.

[17]  R. Robinson,et al.  The treatment of certain cervical-spine disorders by anterior removal of the intervertebral disc and interbody fusion. , 1958, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[18]  A. Hilibrand,et al.  Adjacent segment degeneration and adjacent segment disease: the consequences of spinal fusion? , 2004, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[19]  Vincent E. Bryan Cervical motion segment replacement , 2002, European Spine Journal.

[20]  M. Adams,et al.  Internal Stress Distribution in Cervical Intervertebral Discs: The Influence of an Artificial Cervical Joint and Simulated Anterior Interbody Fusion , 2003, Journal of spinal disorders & techniques.

[21]  Jan Goffin,et al.  Intermediate Follow-up After Treatment of Degenerative Disc Disease With the Bryan Cervical Disc Prosthesis: Single-Level and Bi-Level , 2003, Spine.

[22]  P. Barša,et al.  Heterotopic Ossification in Total Cervical Artificial Disc Replacement , 2006, Spine.

[23]  D. Coric,et al.  Prospective randomized controlled study of the Bryan Cervical Disc: early clinical results from a single investigational site. , 2006, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[24]  S B Sepic,et al.  Anterior Cervical Fusion for Degenerated or Protruded Discs: A Review of One Hundred Forty-Six Patients , 1984, Spine.

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

[26]  F. Benazzo,et al.  Degenerative arthritis of the adjacent spinal joints following anterior cervical spinal fusion: clinicoradiologic and statistical correlations. , 1990, Italian journal of orthopaedics and traumatology.

[27]  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.

[28]  Tae-Hong Lim,et al.  Biomechanical Study on the Effect of Cervical Spine Fusion on Adjacent-Level Intradiscal Pressure and Segmental Motion , 2002, Spine.

[29]  W. Sears,et al.  Complications with cervical arthroplasty. , 2006, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[30]  Ning Lu,et al.  Clinical report of cervical arthroplasty in management of spondylotic myelopathy in Chinese , 2006, Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research.