A Comparison of Cervical Disc Arthroplasty and Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion in Patients with Two-Level Cervical Degenerative Disc Disease: 5-Year Follow-Up Results

Long-term Clinical Outcomes and Optimal Treatment Approaches of Degenerative Cervical Spondylosis: A 12-Year Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

A retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE

To compare long-term outcomes and complications of cervical disc replacement (CDR) and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) with cage-plate constructs (CPC) and stand-alone (SA) cages in treating degenerative cervical spondylosis.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

ACDF is commonly used for cervical radiculopathy but may increase adjacent segment degeneration (ASD). CDR has gained popularity by preserving motion and potentially reducing ASD, whereas SA cages offer a simpler alternative to CPC. Despite widespread adoption, further research is needed to clarify the long-term outcomes and associated complications.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted on 1146 patients who underwent cervical surgery between 2009 and 2012 at three Chinese hospitals, grouped into CDR (n=220), CPC-ACDF (n=540), and SA-ACDF (n=386). Primary outcomes included overall success rate and complications. Secondary measures were JOA, VAS, SF-36 scores, and imaging parameters.

RESULTS

The CDR group exhibited a significantly higher overall success rate compared with CPC-ACDF and SA-ACDF groups. Dysphagia incidence immediately post-surgery was significantly lower in the CDR and SA-ACDF groups compared with CPC-ACDF. At the final follow-up, implant subsidence was lowest in the CDR group. Radiographic-ASD incidence was significantly lower in the CDR and SA-ACDF groups compared with CPC-ACDF, with SA-ACDF having the lowest rate of symptomatic-ASD. The reoperation occurred in 38 (7.0%) CPC-ACDF, 18 (4.7%) SA-ACDF, and 8 (3.6%) CDR patients. Despite a 65.5% incidence of heterotopic ossification (HO), CDR partially preserved the angular range of motion. Multivariate logistic regression analysis suggested that SA-ACDF and CDR were protective factors against postoperative radiographic-ASD. Conditional nomograms demonstrated good predictive performance for symptomatic-ASD, supported by receiver operating characteristics and calibration curves.

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that CDR provides similar clinical outcomes with fewer complications compared with ACDF. However, further research is needed to confirm these findings, particularly considering the variability between different CDR devices and the potential for selection bias.

Changes in the Centers of Rotation in Different Prosthetic Segments Following Continuous Two-Level Cervical Disc Replacement: A Retrospective Study

OBJECTIVE

To observe the short-term to medium-term therapeutic effects and radiological outcomes of adjacent 2-level cervical spondylosis treated with artificial cervical disc replacement (ACDR) using Mobi-C and Bryan discs. To observe changes and discrepancies in the flexion-extension centers of rotation (FE-COR) of different ACDR segments.

METHODS

Twenty-four patients undergoing 2-level (C4/5 and C5/6) ACDR were analyzed retrospectively (11 patients in the Mobi-C group and 13 patients in the Bryan group). Clinical outcomes were assessed using modified Japanese Orthopedic Association score, Neck Disability Index, and visual analog scale. Preoperative and 2 years' follow-up radiographs were collected to compare total cervical spine curvature (C2-C7) range of motion (ROM), upper and lower ACDR segmental ROM, and the operated adjacent segmental ROM. The FE-COR of the ACDR segment was measured using the mid-plumb line method. The degree of disc degeneration in the adjacent segment was observed.

RESULTS

At the 2 years' follow-up, in both group, the modified Japanese Orthopedic Association score increased significantly, and the Neck Disability Index and neck and upper extremity visual analog scale scores decreased significantly compared with preoperative (P < 0.05). There were no significant statistical differences in postoperative scores between the 2 groups (P > 0.05). The overall cervical ROM, the upper and lower segmental ROM at the 2 years' follow-up showed no significant statistical differences compared with the preoperative period (P > 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in the adjacent segmental ROMs compared with the preoperative period (P > 0.05). Furthermore, the statistical analysis revealed no significant differences in the measurements of the ROM at each time points between the Mobi-C Group and the Bryan Group (P > 0.05). There was no significant difference in the preoperative FE-COR-X (indicating the horizontal position of the point in the coordinate system) and FE-COR-Y (indicating the vertical position of the point in the coordinate system) of upper or lower ACDR segments between the 2 groups (P > 0.05). At the 2 years' follow-up, there were significant differences both in FE-COR-X and FE-COR-Y between the 2 groups (P < 0.05). For the Mobi-C group, in both the upper and lower segment, the FE-COR-X significantly increased compared with preoperative (P < 0.05), while the FE-COR-Y decreased compared with preoperative (P < 0.05). For the Bryan group, no significant changes were observed in the upper or lower segment in both FE-COR-X and FE-COR-Y compared with preoperative (P > 0.05). Fourty-eight adjacent segments (24 superior and 24 inferior segments) were included in the studies of adjacent segment disease. Four segments showed imaging adjacent segment disease (4/48, 8.33%) in 4 patients, of which 2 were mild and 2 were moderate according to the grading criteria. Among them, 2 were from the Mobi-C group and 2 were from the Bryan group. No severe imaging degeneration was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

In continuous 2-level cervical ACDR surgery, both Mobi-C and Bryan artificial cervical discs achieved satisfactory clinical outcomes in the short to medium term postoperatively. The FE-COR exhibited different trends of change. In the Mobi-C group, the FE-COR for both upper and lower segments shifted anteriorly and inferiorly, whereas in the Bryan group, whether upper or lower, the FE-COR remained closer to the preoperative state. The changes in FE-COR did not significantly affect the short-term to medium-term clinical outcomes postoperatively.

Does the Angulation of the Screws in the Zero-P Implant Affect the Clinical and Radiological Outcomes of Patients?

OBJECTIVE

When implanting the Zero-P device, the screws of Zero-P form a bone wedge with a 40 ± 5° cranial and caudal angle (CCA). However, no study has been performed in the optimal CCA of the Zero-P implant. To investigate whether the cranial/caudal angles (CCA) of the screws affect the clinical and radiological outcomes in patients undergoing ACDF with the Zero-P implant.

METHODS

From January 2016 to December 2023, we retrospectively analyzed 186 patients who underwent 1-level ACDF with the Zero-P device. The patients were divided into four groups: group A (cranial angle ≤40°, caudal angle ≤40°); group B (cranial angle ≤40°, caudal angle >40°); group C (cranial angle >40°, caudal angle ≤40°); and group D (cranial angle >40°, caudal angle >40°). The clinical outcomes, including Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA), neck disability index (NDI), and visual analogue scale (VAS) scores, the radiological parameters, including cervical lordosis (CL), cervical lordosis of operated segments (OPCL), intervertebral space height (ISH) and fusion rate (FR), and the complications, were evaluated and compared. Parametric tests, non-parametric tests, and chi-square tests were conducted to analyze the data.

RESULTS

The OPCL of group A was significantly less than that of the other groups at the final follow-up (p < 0.05). The ISH of group D was significantly less than that of group A at the final follow-up (p < 0.05). The subsidence rate of group A was significantly less than that of group D at the final follow-up (p < 0.05). At the final follow-up, the upper adjacent-level degeneration (ASD) of group D was significantly less severe than that of groups A and B (p < 0.05). The clinical outcomes do not differ among groups (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

A larger CCA of the screws (cranial angle >40°, caudal angle >40°) was better for maintaining OPCL and reducing the incidence of ASD. A smaller CCA of the screws (cranial angle ≤40°, caudal angle ≤40°) was better for maintaining ISH and reducing the rate of subsidence.

Cervical Disc Arthroplasty (CDA) versus Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion (ACDF) for Two-Level Cervical Disc Degenerative Disease: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) are both considered to be efficacious surgical procedures for treating cervical spondylosis in patients with or without compression myelopathy. This updated systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the outcomes of these procedures for the treatment of cervical degenerative disc disease (DDD) at two contiguous levels. Methods: The PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases were searched up to 1 May 2023. Studies comparing the outcomes between CDA and ACDF in patients with two-level cervical DDD were eligible for inclusion. Primary outcomes were surgical success rates and secondary surgery rates. Secondary outcomes were scores on the Neck Disability Index (NDI) and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for neck and arm pain, as well as the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score for the severity of cervical compression myelopathy and complication rates. Results: In total, eight studies (two RCTs, four retrospective studies, and two prospective studies) with a total of 1155 patients (CDA: 598; ACDF: 557) were included. Pooled results revealed that CDA was associated with a significantly higher overall success rate (OR, 2.710, 95% CI: 1.949-3.770) and lower secondary surgery rate (OR, 0.254, 95% CI: 0.169-0.382) compared to ACDF. In addition, complication rates were significantly lower in the CDA group than in the ACDF group (OR, 0.548, 95% CI: 0.326 to 0.919). CDA was also associated with significantly greater improvements in neck pain VAS than ACDF. No significant differences were found in improvements in the arm VAS, NDI, and JOA scores between the two procedures. Conclusions: CDA may provide better postoperative outcomes for surgical success, secondary surgery, pain reduction, and postoperative complications than ACDF for treating patients with two-level cervical DDD.

Anterior surgical treatment for cervical degenerative radiculopathy: a prediction model for non-success

PURPOSE

By using data from the Norwegian Registry for Spine Surgery, we wanted to develop and validate prediction models for non-success in patients operated with anterior surgical techniques for cervical degenerative radiculopathy (CDR).

METHODS

This is a multicentre longitudinal study of 2022 patients undergoing CDR surgery and followed for 12 months to find prognostic models for non-success in neck disability and arm pain using multivariable logistic regression analysis. Model performance was evaluated by area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and a calibration test. Internal validation by bootstrapping re-sampling with 1000 repetitions was applied to correct for over-optimism. The clinical usefulness of the neck disability model was explored by developing a risk matrix for individual case examples.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight percent of patients experienced non-success in neck disability and 35% in arm pain. Loss to follow-up was 35% for both groups. Predictors for non-success in neck disability were high physical demands in work, low level of education, pending litigation, previous neck surgery, long duration of arm pain, medium-to-high baseline disability score and presence of anxiety/depression. AUC was 0.78 (95% CI, 0.75, 0.82). For the arm pain model, all predictors for non-success in neck disability, except for anxiety/depression, were found to be significant in addition to foreign mother tongue, smoking and medium-to-high baseline arm pain. AUC was 0.68 (95% CI, 0.64, 0.72).

CONCLUSION

The neck disability model showed high discriminative performance, whereas the arm pain model was shown to be acceptable. Based upon the models, individualized risk estimates can be made and applied in shared decision-making with patients referred for surgical assessment.

Safety and Validity of Anterior Cervical Disc Replacement for Single-level Cervical Disc Disease: Initial Two-year Follow-up of the Prospective Observational Post-marketing Surveillance Study for Japanese Patients

Anterior cervical disc replacement (ACDR) using cervical artificial disc (CAD) has the advantage of maintaining the range of motion (ROM) at the surgical level, subsequently reducing the postoperative risk of adjacent disc disease. Following the approval for the clinical use in Japan, a post-marketing surveillance (PMS) study was conducted for two different types of CAD, namely, Mobi-C (metal-on-plastic design) and Prestige LP (metal-on-metal design). The objective of this prospective observational multicenter study was to analyze the first 2-year surgical results of the PMS study of 1-level ACDR in Japan. A total of 54 patients were registered (Mobi-C, n = 24, MC group; Prestige LP, n = 30, PLP group). Preoperative neurological assessment revealed radiculopathy in 31 patients (57.4%) and myelopathy in 15 patients (27.8%). Preoperative radiological assessment classified the disease category as disc herniation in 15 patients (27.8%), osteophyte in 6 patients (11.1%), and both in 33 patients (61.1%). The postoperative follow-up rates at 6 weeks, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years after ACDR were 92.6%, 87.0%, 83.3%, and 79.6%, respectively. In both groups, patients' neurological condition improved significantly after surgery. Radiographic assessment revealed loss of mobility at the surgical level in 9.5% of patients in the MC group and in 9.1% of patients in the PLP group. No secondary surgeries at the initial surgical level and no serious adverse events were observed in either group. The present results suggest that 1-level ACDR is safe, although medium- to long-term follow-up is mandatory to further verify the validity of ACDR for Japanese patients.

Cervical Alignment Analysis Comparing Two-Level Cervical Disc Arthroplasty with Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion with Anterior Plate Fixation

OBJECTIVE

This study assesses cervical alignments after 2-level cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) with anterior plate fixation.

METHODS

Eighty-two patients who underwent 2-level CDA or ACDF in 2014-2019 were identified. Cervical alignment parameters were compared between the 2 cohorts. Subgroup analyses were performed to determine factors that differentiate alignment outcomes between the 2 procedures.

RESULTS

Although both cohorts achieved significant focal lordosis (FL) and overall cervical lordotic (CL) gains, CDA cohorts achieved significantly greater 12-month FL gain (P = 0.022). However, in a multivariate analysis controlling for preoperative variables, FL gain was no longer significant. Although the CDA cervical sagittal vertical axis (cSVA) significantly improved at 3 (P = 0.030) and 12 (P = 0.007) months, these improvements were not superior to the ACDF cSVA. Male patients undergoing CDA achieved greater 12-month CL gain. Patients undergoing CDA with body mass index >25 kg/m² achieved greater 12-month FL gain. Patients undergoing CDA with symptom duration >12 months achieved greater FL gain at 3 and 12 months. Patients undergoing CDA with high baseline T1 slope or cSVA achieved greater 12-month cSVA reduction. Clinical outcomes were comparable between the 2 cohorts. Unlike the ACDF group, CL gain in the CDA group was significantly correlated with the cSVA reduction, which was associated with significant improvement in the Neck Disability Index, arm pain, and 12-Item Short-Form Mental Component Scores. Heterotopic ossification was not found to significantly affect patient outcome and cervical alignment in both cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

ACDF and CDA are viable options for 2-level degenerative disc disease in carefully selected patients. Both approaches produced equivalent postoperative alignment changes in a 2-level operation.

Comparison of Radiographic Reconstruction and Clinical Improvement between Artificial Cervical Disc Replacement and Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion

Background

The surgical management of cervical degenerative disc degeneration (CDDD) has not reached a consensus. Artificial cervical disc replacement (ACDR) has been shown to be efficient in reducing symptoms after CDDD, although the topic remains highly controversial in this field. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of ACDR on the treatment of CDDD on the aspect of radiographic reconstruction and clinical improvement compared with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF).

Methods

This was a retrospective comparative study with 47 patients who underwent single-level ACDR and 46 patients who underwent single-level ACDF. The radiographic reconstruction was assessed by the cervical sagittal alignment parameters, consisting of two aspects, distance and angle, such as cervical sagittal vertical axis (cSVA), cervical lordosis (CL), T1 slope (T1s), and intervertebral space height (ISH). The clinical improvement was assessed by patient-related outcomes (PROs), consisting of two aspects, relief of axial neck pain and recovery of cervical dysfunction, measured through the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Neck Disability Index (NDI), and Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA).

Results

Significant variations were achieved on aspects of radiographic reconstruction and clinical improvement after ACDR (P < 0.05), which were similar to that of the ACDF group (P < 0.05). A significantly larger postoperative range of motion (ROM) was found in patients less than 45 years of age in the ACDR group (P < 0.05). In addition, a significantly better postoperative JOA was found in patients with a preoperative ISH less than 4 mm in the ACDF group than that in the ACDR group (P < 0.05). Other than that mentioned above, no significant variations in radiographic and clinical outcomes were found between the two groups (P > 0.05).

Conclusions

Overall, this study showed that a similar capability in terms of radiographic reconstruction and clinical improvement was found between the two methods. Specific concerns should be analyzed while choosing between an ACDR and an ACDF. It should be pointed out that, based on our experience, if the patient is younger, ACDR is recommended; for patients with preoperative ISH less than 4 mm, ACDF is more recommended.

A Dynamic Interbody Cage Improves Bone Formation in Anterior Cervical Surgery: A Porcine Biomechanical Study

BACKGROUND

Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) with a rigid interbody spacer is commonly used in the treatment of cervical degenerative disc disease. Although ACDF relieves clinical symptoms, it is associated with several complications such as pseudoarthrosis and adjacent segment degeneration. The concept of dynamic fusion has been proposed to enhance fusion and reduce implant subsidence rate and post-fusion stiffness; this pilot preclinical animal study was conducted to begin to compare rigid and dynamic fusion in ACDF.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

Using a pig model, we asked, is there (1) decreased subsidence, (2) reduced axial stiffness in compression, and (3) improved likelihood of bone growth with a dynamic interbody cage compared with a rigid interbody cage in ACDF?

METHODS

ACDF was performed at two levels, C3/4 and C5/6, in 10 pigs weighing 48 to 55 kg at the age of 14 to 18 months (the pigs were skeletally mature). One level was implanted with a conventional rigid interbody cage, and the other level was implanted with a dynamic interbody cage. The conventional rigid interbody cage was implanted in the upper level in the first five pigs and in the lower level in the next five pigs. Both types of interbody cages were implanted with artificial hydroxyapatite and tricalcium phosphate bone grafts. To assess subsidence, we took radiographs at 0, 7, and 14 weeks postoperatively. Subsidence less than 10% of the disc height was considered as no radiologic abnormality. The animals were euthanized at 14 weeks, and each operated-on motion segment was harvested. Five specimens from each group were biomechanically tested under axial compression loading to determine stiffness. The other five specimens from each group were used for microCT evaluation of bone ingrowth and ongrowth and histologic investigation of bone formation. Sample size was determined based on 80% power and an α of 0.05 to detect a between-group difference of successful bone formation of 15%.

RESULTS

With the numbers available, there was no difference in subsidence between the two groups. Seven of 10 operated-on levels with rigid cages had subsidence on a follow-up radiograph at 14 weeks, and subsidence occurred in two of 10 operated-on levels with dynamic cages (Fisher exact test; p = 0.07). The stiffness of the unimplanted rigid interbody cages was higher than the unimplanted dynamic interbody cages. After harvesting, the median (range) stiffness of the motion segments fused with dynamic interbody cages (531 N/mm [372 to 802]) was less than that of motion segments fused with rigid interbody cages (1042 N/mm [905 to 1249]; p = 0.002). Via microCT, we observed bone trabecular formation in both groups. The median (range) proportions of specimens showing bone ongrowth (88% [85% to 92%]) and bone volume fraction (87% [72% to 100%]) were higher in the dynamic interbody cage group than bone ongrowth (79% [71% to 81%]; p < 0.001) and bone volume fraction (66% [51% to 78%]; p < 0.001) in the rigid interbody cage group. The percentage of the cage with bone ingrowth was higher in the dynamic interbody cage group (74% [64% to 90%]) than in the rigid interbody cage group (56% [32% to 63%]; p < 0.001), and the residual bone graft percentage was lower (6% [5% to 8%] versus 13% [10% to 20%]; p < 0.001). In the dynamic interbody cage group, more bone formation was qualitatively observed inside the cages than in the rigid interbody cage group, with a smaller area of fibrotic tissue under histologic investigation.

CONCLUSION

The dynamic interbody cage provided satisfactory stabilization and percentage of bone ongrowth in this in vivo model of ACDF in pigs, with lower stiffness after bone ongrowth and no difference in subsidence.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The dynamic interbody cage appears to be worthy of further investigation. An animal study with larger numbers, with longer observation time, with multilevel surgery, and perhaps in the lumbar spine should be considered.

Metal-on-metal versus metal-on-plastic artificial discs in two-level anterior cervical disc replacement: a meta-analysis with follow-up of 5 years or more

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Although highlighted in joint arthroplasty studies, long-term outcomes between differing biomaterial composites, such as metal-on-metal (MoM) and metal-on-plastic (MoP) in anterior cervical disc replacement (ACDR) have not been thoroughly investigated.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the patient-reported clinical outcomes, overall reoperation rates, complications, and rates of ASD of MoM versus MoP artificial discs in two-level ACDR for the treatment of cervical DDD.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

Meta-analysis and systematic review.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Nine hundred eighty patients (442 MoM, 538 MoP) across seven studies.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Patient reported clinical outcomes (NDI, VAS-n, VAS-a), overall reoperation rates, complications, and rates of ASD.

METHODS

A systematic search strategy of three electronic databases (PubMed, CINAHL Plus, and SCOPUS) was conducted utilizing terms related to two-level ACDR. All studies included had a sample size of >10 patients, had a minimum 5-year follow-up, and reported data on adjacent segment disease. Cadaver studies, non-English manuscripts, articles with less than 5-year follow-up and studies in which only single-level ACDR was investigated were excluded. A total of seven studies were included in this analysis. Studies were analyzed for demographic data, clinical outcome scores (NDI, VAS-neck, and VAS-arm), overall reoperation rates, complications, and rates of ASD. A random-effects model of meta-analysis was used for groups that were determined to be heterogenous and a fixed-effects model was utilized for groups that were not. An overlap of 95% confidence intervals suggests no statistically significant difference at the p<.05 level.

RESULTS

Seven studies were included with data on 980 patients (442 MoM, 538 MoP). The study population was 52.84% female, with a mean age of 48.01 years, and a mean follow-up of 85.66 months. The mean improvement in NDI was 34.42 (95% CI, 32.49-36.36) and 29.72 (95% CI, 27.15-32.29) for the MoM and MoP groups, respectively. The mean improvement in VAS-neck was 11.20 (95% CI, 10.69-11.70) and 8.78 (95% CI, 7.81-9.74) for the MoM and MoP groups, respectively. The mean improvement in VAS-arm was 10.73 (95% CI, 9.83-11.63) and 8.49 (95% CI, 7.59-9.39) for the MoM and MoP groups, respectively. 3.85% (95% CI, 2.40-6.10) of patients who underwent ACDR with a MoM implant required reoperation compared to 5.33% (95% CI, 3.68-7.65) of patients with a MoP implant. Heterotopic ossification and dysphagia were the most common complications in both groups. The MoM cohort showed a higher incidence of HO (72.62% vs. 21.07%), but a lower incidence of dysphagia (0.96% vs. 16.31%) compared to the MoP cohort. The MoM cohort had a larger proportion of patients with ASD who underwent subsequent surgery at an adjacent level (7.89% MoM versus 1.91% MoP).

CONCLUSIONS

Our present meta-analysis suggests that the use of MoM artificial discs in two-level ACDR results in superior clinical outcome score improvement, but higher rates of ASD requiring secondary surgery compared to MoP discs after a follow-up period of 5 years or more.

Association of cervical sagittal alignment with adjacent segment degeneration and heterotopic ossification following cervical disc replacement with Prestige-LP disc

PURPOSE

Cervical sagittal balance plays important roles in transmitting the load of the head and maintaining global spinal balance. This study aimed to identify the association of cervical sagittal alignment with adjacent segment degeneration (ASD) and heterotopic ossification (HO) after Prestige-LP cervical disc replacement (CDR).

METHODS

We enrolled 132 patients who underwent one-level Prestige-LP CDR with 2-10 years of follow-up. Cervical sagittal alignment parameters, including the degree of C2-C7 lordosis (CL), functional spinal unit angle (FSUA), sagittal vertical axis (SVA),, and T1 slope (T1s), were measured. ASD and HO were evaluated at the last follow-up. Unpaired t tests and logistic regression analysis were used to identify the associations of cervical sagittal alignment with ASD and HO.

RESULTS

We found that patients who developed ASD showed significantly lower FSUA (2.1° vs. -1.4°, p < 0.001) and T1s values (28.4° vs. 25.5°, p = 0.029) after surgery. Similarly, the postoperative CL was significantly better in patients without ASD or HO (18.0° vs. 14.4°, p = 0.043). The decrease in the T1s at the last follow-up was significantly larger in the patients with ASD (-11.0° vs. -3.2°, p = 0.003), HO (-6.7° vs. -2.7°, p = 0.050), and ASD or HO (-7.0° vs. -0.8°, p < 0.001) than in those without ASD or HO. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that both the FSUA and T1s are associated with ASD and that the degree of CL is associated with postoperative complications.

CONCLUSION

The results imply that maintaining cervical sagittal alignment after Prestige-LP CDR is important.

Cervical sagittal alignment after Prestige LP cervical disc replacement: radiological results and clinical impacts from a single-center experience

BACKGROUND

Cervical disc replacement (CDR) has been widely used to treat one- and two-level cervical degenerative disc disease. Studies have shown the effectiveness of CDR in preserving range of motion (ROM) and delaying adjacent segment degeneration (ASD). Cervical sagittal alignment is an important factor affecting favorable clinical outcomes in cervical spine surgery. This study aimed to explore whether cervical sagittal alignment can be maintained after CDR and to identify the impact of cervical sagittal alignment on outcomes after CDR.

METHODS

This was a single-center, retrospective study. 132 patients who underwent one-level CDR were included. Cervical sagittal alignments, including cervical lordosis (CL), segmental alignment (SA), sagittal vertical axis (SVA), T1 slope (T1s), and T1s minus CL (T1s-CL), were measured. The effects of cervical sagittal alignment on the CDR outcomes were analyzed. Patients were divided into the heterotopic ossification (HO) group and ASD group to determine the potential impacts of cervical sagittal parameters.

RESULTS

The cervical sagittal alignment parameters, except for the SVA, were significantly improved after CDR and showed decreasing trends at the last follow-up. Significantly higher CL and T1s were found in patients with better ROM after CDR. SVA ≥ 20 mm increased the risk of anterior HO (odds ratio = 2.945, P = 0.007). Significantly kyphotic SA and lower T1s values were found in the ASD patients than in the non-ASD patients (P < 0.05). Patients with ASD at the inferior level showed significantly worse CL (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

CDR had limited function of improving cervical sagittal alignment. Poor cervical sagittal alignment after CDR was associated with HO, ASD, and less ROM.

Two-Level Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Versus Cervical Disc Arthroplasty-Long-Term Evidence Update

BACKGROUND

Multiple studies have highlighted the motion-sparing benefits of single-level cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) compared with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). However, few studies have reviewed multilevel ACDF versus CDA. Several recent studies have midterm and even long-term data available comparing 2-level ACDF versus CDA.

METHODS

We reviewed 3 reports from 2 large randomized, prospective Food and Drug Administration investigational drug exemption trials looking at 2-level CDA versus ACDF, which provide the bulk of the available midterm to long-term, high-level evidence for the topic. We also present several smaller and/or shorter-term studies.

RESULTS

One 5-year study showed that, while both CDA and ACDF showed significant improvement in patient-reported outcome scores, CDA demonstrated greater improvement in Neck Disability Index (NDI) scores than ACDF (mean = -37 versus mean = -28, P = .0003), were more likely to be satisfied (96.4% versus 89.5%, P = .04), had fewer secondary surgeries (4% versus 16.2%, P = .0003), had fewer adjacent level reoperations (3.1% versus 11.4%), and developed less adjacent segment degeneration (50.7% versus 90.5%, P < .0001). Adverse events occurred more frequently with ACDF (8.6% versus 4.4%).Similarly, Lanman et al [Lanman TH, Burkus JK, Dryer RG, Gornet MF, McConnell J, Hodges SD. Long-term clinical and radiographic outcomes of the Prestige LP artificial cervical disc replacement at 2 levels: results from a prospective randomized controlled clinical trial. J Neurosurg Spine. 2017;27(1):7-19] showed that, at 7 years, while both groups demonstrated improvement in patient-reported outcomes, CDA had greater improvement in regard to NDI, neck pain, and Short Form (36) Physical Component Summary scores (each P < .001), had higher rates of satisfaction (94.8% versus 92.6%), had lower rate of secondary surgery at treated levels (4.2% versus 14.7%), and had a lower, albeit not statistically significant, rate of secondary surgeries at adjacent levels (6.5% versus 12.5%). Adverse events were more common with ACDF (7.2% versus 3.2%).More recently, Gornet et al [Gornet MF, Lanman TH, Burkus JK, et al. Two-level cervical disc arthroplasty versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: 10-year outcomes of a prospective, randomized investigational device exemption clinical trial. J Neurosurg Spine. 2019;31:508-518.] in 2019 reported 10-year data from the same clinical trial as the Lanman et al report comparing 2-level CDA (209 patients) versus ACDF (188 patients). With >84% follow-up for both groups at 10 years, they found that CDA demonstrated a statistically significantly improved rate of overall success (84% versus 62%) as compared with ACDF. Greater improvements were seen in several other outcome measures for CDA, including NDI, neurological success, and neck pain scores. The CDA group had a lower rate of serious implant-related adverse events and demonstrated a lower rate of needing a secondary surgery at an adjacent level, 9% versus 18% in the ACDF group.

CONCLUSIONS

Results of 2 large randomized trials suggest similar-to-improved patient reported outcomes for multilevel CDA versus ACDF maintained out to midterm to long-term follow-up of 5-10 years, with lower rates of revision surgery at index and adjacent levels and lower rates of serious adverse device-related events.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

5.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Comparison of the safety and efficacy of multi-level cervical disc arthroplasty and cervical discectomy and fusion.

Surgical strategy used in multilevel cervical disc replacement and cervical hybrid surgery: Four case reports

BACKGROUND

Multilevel artificial cervical disc replacement and anterior hybrid surgery have been introduced as reliable treatments for multilevel cervical degenerative disc disease. Surgical techniques are important for resolving patients’ symptoms and maintaining the normal functioning of cervical implants. However, the use of inappropriate surgical strategies could lead to complications such as implant migration and neurological deficit. In this paper, we summarize our surgical strategies used in multilevel cervical disc replacement and hybrid surgery into five major notes.

CASE SUMMARY

We share the key notes and our surgical procedures in the form of four typical case presentations. All patients were diagnosed with cervical degenerative disc disease with myelopathy or radiculopathy and needed multilevel cervical spine surgery. The first case demonstrated that index levels indicating the presence of highly serious spinal cord compression required a prioritized decompression. The second case demonstrated that the disc replacement should be performed before fusion in cervical hybrid surgery. The third and forth cases demonstrated that a top-down implantation sequence was needed in continuous two-level cervical disc replacement. The symptoms of all patients were significantly relieved after surgery.

CONCLUSION

We hope that our surgical strategies can help improve the performance and outcomes of multilevel cervical spine surgery.

Multilevel cervical arthroplasty-clinical and radiological outcomes

BACKGROUND

Cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) is a valid option for single-level cervical disc disease (CDD) as an alternative to fusion. However, the use in 3- and 4-level disc disease is under scrutiny with scarce data published so far. Our aim was to study clinical and radiological outcomes of arthroplasty in patients with multilevel CDD.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of clinical records, pre- and post-operative neutral/dynamic X-rays of patients who underwent CDA in multilevel CDD (2-4 levels). We evaluated sagittal balance parameters (C2-7 and index angle, SVA), global and segmental range of motion (ROM)), neck and arm VAS, Odom's criteria, re-operation rate, adjacent segment disease (ASD), willingness to undertake the same procedure again. Rate of heterotopic ossification (HO) was studied for follow-up >2 years. A subgroup analysis was performed regarding 2-level versus 3- or 4-level arthroplasty.

RESULTS

Thirty-two patients were included, 6 males and 26 females, mean age of 46 years (range, 30-63). Seventy-seven cervical disc levels were treated with the same artificial disc. Twenty-one patients were operated on 2 levels, nine in 3 levels, and 2 patients in 4 levels. Post-operatively, there was a decrease in SVA (-2.2±8.36 mm, P=0.098) and an increase in global (3.7±9.6º, P=0.042) and index (1.3±6.1º, P=0.071) ROM. Mean nVAS and aVAS decreased (7.5±1.1 to 2.5±1.5; 6.3±1.9 to 2.2±1.7, P<0.05). Two-level versus 3-4 level patient subgroups showed a lower SVA (-1.3±8.1 mm P=0.47; -3.4±6.3 mm P=0.107), a slight increase in global (1.6±9.4º P=0.44; 7.2±11.7º P=0.07) and index (1.1±4.7º P=0.12; 1.3±8.1º P=0.35) ROM. HO was present in 9.9% (7/71) of disc levels operated, none of them with grade 3 or 4.

CONCLUSIONS

Multilevel CDA provides good clinical and radiological outcomes, preserving global and segmental cervical mobility, while having a beneficial effect on sagittal balance. These results hold for 2 to 4 levels, making this technique a valuable option in selected patients with cervical multilevel CDD.

Cervical Disc Replacement

Anterior cervical disc replacement (arthroplasty) has gained momentum over the past 2 decades. The ball-and-socket prosthesis design of arthroplasty has been shown to simulate normal motion in all 3 rotation planes at the level of surgery and replicates physiologic motion. Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion has been shown to be a safe and effective surgery over decades; cervical disc replacement counters some secondary effects owing to its preservation of segmental mobility, the potential to reduce adjacent segment degeneration, and the lack of plating or harvesting bone graft. The literature is growing in support of the success and longevity of arthroplasty.

Effect of Myelopathy on Early Clinical Improvement After Cervical Disc Replacement: A Study of a Local Patient Cohort and a Large National Cohort

Objective

Cervical disc replacement (CDR) is an effective long-term treatment for both cervical radiculopathy and myelopathy. However, there may be unique differences in the early postoperative clinical improvement for patients with and without myelopathy. In addition, previous studies using CDR to treat cervical myelopathy were underpowered to determine risk factors for relatively postoperative medical complications.

Methods

Two different cohorts were studied. A local cohort of patients undergoing CDR by a single surgeon was utilized to study the early postoperative course of clinical improvement. In addition, a national cohort of patients undergoing CDR in the 2015 and 2016 National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was utilized to study differences in postoperative medical complications after CDR. Patients with a preoperative diagnosis of cervical myelopathy were identified in both cohorts, and perioperative outcomes and complications were compared to patients without myelopathy.

Results

A total of 43 patients undergoing CDR were included in the institutional cohort, of those 16 patients (37% of cohort) had a preoperative diagnosis of cervical myelopathy. A total of 3,023 patients undergoing CDR were included in the national cohort, of those 411 (13% of cohort) had a preoperative diagnosis of cervical myelopathy. In the institutional cohort, the nonmyelopathy group had a lower initial Neck Disability Index (NDI) and saw a faster improvement in NDI by 2 weeks postoperative. However, at 24 weeks there was no significant difference between groups in terms of NDI. Interestingly, only the nonmyelopathy cohort had a significant improvement in modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association score by 6 weeks (p<0.05). In the national cohort, myelopathy was associated with longer operative time and length of stay (p<0.05). However, there was no significant difference in perioperative complications (p>0.05) between myelopathy and nonmyelopathy patients.

Conclusion

Significant improvements in NDI, visual analogue scale (VAS)-arm pain, and VAS-neck pain are seen in both myelopathy and nonmyelopathy populations undergoing CDR by 6 weeks postoperatively. However, nonmyelopathy populations improve faster by 2 weeks postoperatively. In the national cohort analysis, medical complications were similarly low in both myelopathy and nonmyelopathy groups.