Comparisons of three anterior cervical surgeries in treating cervical spondylotic myelopathy

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

Quan Yuan¹  MinJie Shen¹  GenLin Wang¹  ZhiDong Wang¹  HuiLin Yang¹  RuoFu Zhu¹ 

[1] Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, 188 Shizi Street, Suzhou, China

关键词: Clinical effects;    Dynamic cervical implant;    Non-fusion;    Fusion;    Cervical spondylotic myelopathy;   

Others  :  1122373
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2474-15-233

 received in 2013-06-30, accepted in 2014-07-03,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) was one of the preferred treatments for degenerative cervical spondylosis. However, the motion of adjacent segment was significantly increased after operation. So cervical disc arthroplasty have been suggested to keep the motion of adjacent segment. A new implant named dynamic cervical implant (DCI) has been developed to keep the motion of adjacent segment.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed 91 patients treated for single level cervical spondylotic myelopathy with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), dynamic cervical implant (DCI) and cervical total disc replacement (CTDR) between sep 2009 and Mar 2011 in our hospital. They were divided into three groups by surgical methods: ACDF group (group A, 34 cases), DCI group (group B, 25 cases), CTDR group (group C, 32 cases). Operation time, intraoperative blood loss, preoperative and postoperative JOA score and JOA recovery rate were compared among the three groups. Pre-and postoperative hyperextension and hyperflexion radiograms were observed to measure range of motion (ROM) of C_2–7, operative and adjacent levels.

Results

There was no statistical difference in operative time, intraoperative blood loss, and JOA recovery rate (P > 0.05) among three groups. But the differences of their postoperative JOA scores and preoperative JOA scores were of statistical significance (P < 0.05). Compared the pre-and postoperative ROM of C_2–7, operative, upper and lower levels of each group respectively, the difference between preoperative ROM and postoperative ROM of group A were of statistically significant (P < 0.05), while was no statistically significant of group C (P > 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference between preoperative ROM and postoperative ROM of upper and lower levels in group B (P > 0.05), but had statistically significance of C_2–7 and operative levels (P < 0.05).

Conclusions

Three operations are effective therapies for single level cervical spondylotic myelopathy. But each group has respective advantages and disadvantages.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Zhu et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Heller JG, Sasso RC, Papadopoulos SM, Anderson PA, Fessler RG, Hacker RJ, Coric D, Cauthen JC, Riew DK: Comparison of Bryan cervicaI disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical decompression and fusion: clinical and radiographic results of a randomized, controlled, clinical trial. Spine 2009, 34:101-107.
• [2]Phillips FM, Allen TR, Regan JJ, Albert TJ, Cappuccino A, Devine JG, Ahrens JE, Hipp JA, McAfee PC: CervicaI disc replacement in patients with and without previous adjacent level fusion surgery: a prospective study. Spine 2009, 34:556-565.
• [3]Elsawaf A, Mastronardi L, Ropeao R, Bozzao A, Caroli M, Ferrante L: Effect of cervical dynamics on adjacent segment degeneration after anterior cervical fusion with cages. Neurosurg Rev 2009, 32:215-224.
• [4]Chang UK, Kim DH, Lee MC, Willenberg R, Kim SH, Lim J: Range of motion change after cervical arthroplasty with ProDisc-C and prestige artificial discs compared with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. J Neurosurg Spine 2007, 7:40-46.
• [5]Robertson JT, Papadopoulos SM, Traynelis VC: Assessment of adjacent-segment disease in patients treated with cervical fusion or arthroplasty: a prospective 2-year study. J Neurosurg Spine 2005, 3:417-423.
• [6]Pickett GE, Sekhon LH, Sears WR, Duggal N: Complications with cervical arthroplasty. J Neurosurg Spine 2006, 4:98-105.
• [7]Hirabayashi K, Miyakawa J, Satomi K, Maruyama T, Wakano K: Operative results and postoperative progression of ossification among patients with ossification of posterior longitudinal ligament. Spine 1981, 6:354-364.
• [8]Smith GW, Robinson RA: The treatment of certain cervical spine disorders by anterior removal of the intervertebral disc and interbody fusion. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1958, 40:607-624.
• [9]Cloward RB: The anterior approach for removal of ruptured cervical disks. J Neurosurg 1958, 15:602-617.
• [10]Sasso RC, Best NM: Cervical kinematics after fusion and bryan disc arthroplasty. J Spinal Disord Tech 2008, 21:19-22.
• [11]Hilibrand AS, Carlson GD, Palumbo MA, Jones PK, Bohlman HH: Radiculopathy and myelopathy at segments adjacent to the site of a previous anterior cervical arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1999, 81:519-528.
• [12]Yang S, Wu X, Hu Y, Li J, Liu G, Xu W, Yang C, Ye S: Early and intermediate follow-up results after treatment of degenerative disc disease with the Bryan cervical disc prosthesis: single- and multiple-level. Spine 2008, 33:E371-E377.
• [13]Ding C, Hong Y, Liu H, Shi R, Hu T, Li T: Intermediate clinical outcome of Bryan Cervical Disc replacement for degenerative disk disease and its effect on adjacent segment disks. Orthopedics 2012, 35:909-916.
• [14]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:E5.
• [15]Fong SY, Duplessis SJ, Casha S, Hurlbert RJ: Design limitations of Bryan disc arthroplasty. Spine J 2006, 6:233-241.
• [16]Sasso RC, Smucker JD, Hacker RJ, Heller JG: Clinical outcomes of Bryan cervical disc arthroplasty: a prospective, randomized, controlled multicenter trial with 24-month follow-up. J Spinal Disord Tech 2007, 20:481-491.