Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · J Neurol Surg A Cent Eur Neurosurg 2023; 84(05): 455-461
DOI: 10.1055/a-1712-5386
Original Article

Long-term Follow-Up Results of Dynamic Cervical Implant in Patients with Cervical Disk Diseases: Compared with Arthroplasty

Li Zou
1   Department of Pediatric Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan Province, People's Republic of China
,
Hao Liu
2   Department of Orthopedics, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan Province, People's Republic of China
,
Xin Rong
2   Department of Orthopedics, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan Province, People's Republic of China
,
Xijiao Liu
3   Department of Radiology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan Province, People's Republic of China
,
Chen Ding
2   Department of Orthopedics, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan Province, People's Republic of China
,
Yueming Song
2   Department of Orthopedics, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan Province, People's Republic of China
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background Arthroplasty has been proven to be a safe and effective treatment for patients with cervical degenerative disk disease (DDD). Dynamic Cervical Implant (DCI) has emerged as a novel implantation device for cervical DDD. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of these procedures after 5 years of follow-up in the DCI and arthroplasty groups.

Methods This study retrospectively enrolled 79 consecutive cervical DDD patients with 41 DCI and 47 prostheses implanted. Radiographs were analyzed for intervertebral height and range of motion (ROM). Neural function of the patients was assessed using the Neck Disability Index score, visual analog scale, Japanese Orthopaedic Association score and 36-Item Short Form Survey.

Results The DCI group had statistically lesser flexion/extension and bilateral bending ROM than the arthroplasty group at the operated level(s) (p < 0.05). The DCI group but not the orthoplast group showed improved lordotic alignment of C2–C7 and operated functional spinal unit (p < 0.05). No statistical difference was observed in the neural function of the two groups. Heterotopic ossification was found in 7 and 14 patients in the DCI and arthroplasty groups, respectively.

Conclusion The 5-year follow-up results were comparable between the two groups. We believe that DCI implantation is a safe and effective procedure and could possibly become an alternative treatment for cervical DDD.

Keywords

cervical disk degenerative disease - cervical disk replacement - Dynamic Cervical Implant - Arthoplasty


Publication History

Received: 24 January 2021

Accepted: 30 November 2021

Accepted Manuscript online:
03 December 2021

Article published online:
11 May 2022

© 2022. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Bohlman HH, Emery SE, Goodfellow DB, Jones PK. Robinson anterior cervical discectomy and arthrodesis for cervical radiculopathy. Long-term follow-up of one hundred and twenty-two patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1993; 75 (09) 1298-1307
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Boody BS, Lee EN, Sasso WR. et al. Functional outcomes associated with adjacent-level ossification disease 10 years after cervical disc arthroplasty or ACDF. Clin Spine Surg 2020; 33 (09) E420-E425
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Tomé-Bermejo F, Morales-Valencia JA, Moreno-Pérez J. et al. Degenerative cervical disc disease: Long-term changes in sagittal alignment and their clinical implications after cervical interbody fusion cage subsidence: a prospective study with standalone lordotic tantalum cages. Clin Spine Surg 2017; 30 (05) E648-E655
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Wigfield C, Gill S, Nelson R, Langdon I, Metcalf N, Robertson J. Influence of an artificial cervical joint compared with fusion on adjacent-level motion in the treatment of degenerative cervical disc disease. J Neurosurg 2002; 96 (1, Suppl): 17-21
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Matsunaga S, Kabayama S, Yamamoto T, Yone K, Sakou T, Nakanishi K. Strain on intervertebral discs after anterior cervical decompression and fusion. Spine 1999; 24 (07) 670-675
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Peng CW, Yue WM, Basit A. et al. Intermediate results of the Prestige LP cervical disc replacement: clinical and radiological analysis with minimum two-year follow-up. Spine 2011; 36 (02) E105-E111
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Welke B, Schwarze M, Hurschler C, Book T, Magdu S, Daentzer D. In vitro investigation of a new Dynamic Cervical Implant: comparison to spinal fusion and total disc replacement. Eur Spine J 2016; 25 (07) 2247-2254
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Zeng J, Liu H, Chen H. et al. Comparison of heterotopic ossification after fixed- and mobile-core cervical disc arthroplasty. World Neurosurg 2018; 120: e1319-e1324
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Matgé G, Berthold C, Gunness VR, Hana A, Hertel F. Stabilization with the Dynamic Cervical Implant: a novel treatment approach following cervical discectomy and decompression. J Neurosurg Spine 2015; 22 (03) 237-245
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Shichang L, Yueming S, Limin L. et al. Clinical and radiologic comparison of Dynamic Cervical Implant arthroplasty and cervical total disc replacement for single-level cervical degenerative disc disease. J Clin Neurosci 2016; 27: 102-109
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Wang L, Song YM, Liu LM, Liu H, Li T. Clinical and radiographic outcomes of Dynamic Cervical Implant replacement for treatment of single-level degenerative cervical disc disease: a 24-month follow-up. Eur Spine J 2014; 23 (08) 1680-1687
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Odom GL, Finney W, Woodhall B. Cervical disk lesions. J Am Med Assoc 1958; 166 (01) 23-28
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Harrison DE, Harrison DD, Cailliet R, Troyanovich SJ, Janik TJ, Holland B. Cobb method or Harrison posterior tangent method: which to choose for lateral cervical radiographic analysis. Spine 2000; 25 (16) 2072-2078
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977; 33 (01) 159-174
    Google Scholar
  • 15 Goffin J, Casey A, Kehr P. et al. Preliminary clinical experience with the Bryan cervical disc prosthesis. Neurosurgery 2002; 51 (03) 840-845 , discussion 845–847
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Garrido BJ, Taha TA, Sasso RC. Clinical outcomes of Bryan cervical disc arthroplasty a prospective, randomized, controlled, single site trial with 48-month follow-up. J Spinal Disord Tech 2010; 23 (06) 367-371
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Quan GM, Vital JM, Hansen S, Pointillart V. Eight-year clinical and radiological follow-up of the Bryan cervical disc arthroplasty. Spine 2011; 36 (08) 639-646
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Pickett GE, Mitsis DK, Sekhon LH, Sears WR, Duggal N. Effects of a cervical disc prosthesis on segmental and cervical spine alignment. Neurosurg Focus 2004; 17 (03) E5
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Lee SH, Im YJ, Kim KT, Kim YH, Park WM, Kim K. Comparison of cervical spine biomechanics after fixed- and mobile-core artificial disc replacement: a finite element analysis. Spine 2011; 36 (09) 700-708
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Kang H, Park P, La Marca F, Hollister SJ, Lin CY. Analysis of load sharing on uncovertebral and facet joints at the C5-6 level with implantation of the Bryan, Prestige LP, or ProDisc-C cervical disc prosthesis: an in vivo image-based finite element study. Neurosurg Focus 2010; 28 (06) E9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Park SB, Kim KJ, Jin YJ, Kim HJ, Jahng TA, Chung CK. X-ray-based kinematic analysis of cervical spine according to prosthesis designs: analysis of the Mobi C, Bryan, PCM, and Prestige LP. J Spinal Disord Tech 2015; 28 (05) E291-E297
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar