Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Disc replacement using Pro-Disc C versus fusion: a prospective randomised and controlled radiographic and clinical study

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) may be considered to be the gold standard for treatment of symptomatic degenerative disc disease within the cervical spine. However, fusion of the segment may result in progressive degeneration of the adjacent segments. Therefore, dynamic stabilization procedures have been introduced. Among these, artificial disc replacement by disc prosthesis seems to be promising. However, to be so, segmental motion must be preserved. This, again, is very difficult to judge and has not yet been proven. The aim of the current study was to first analyse the segmental motion following artificial disc replacement using a disc prosthesis. A second aim was to compare both segmental motion as well as clinical result to the current gold standard (ACDF). This is a prospective controlled study. Twenty-five patients with cervical disc herniation were enrolled and assigned to either study group (receiving a disc prosthesis) or control group (receiving ACDF, using a cage with bone graft and an anterior plate.) Radiostereometric analysis was used to quantify intervertebral motion immediately as well as 3, 6, 12 and 24 weeks postoperatively. Further, clinical results were judged using visual analogue scale and neuro-examination. Cervical spine segmental motion decreased over time in the presence of disc prosthesis or ACDF. However, the loss of segmental motion is significantly higher in the ACDF group, when looked at 3, 6, 12 and 24 weeks after surgery. We observed significant pain reduction in neck and arm postoperatively, without significant difference between both groups (P > 0.05). Cervical spine disc prosthesis preserves cervical spine segmental motion within the first 6 months after surgery. The clinical results are the same when compared to the early results following ACDF.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Anderson PA, Sasso RC, Rouleau JP, Carlson CS, Goffin J (2004) The Bryan Cervical disc: wear properties and early clinical results. Spine J 4:303–309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bartels RH, Donk R (2005) Fusion around cervical disc prosthesis: case report. Neurosurgery. 57(1):146–151

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bertagnoli R, Yue JJ, Pfeiffer F, Fenk-Mayer A, Lawrence JP, Kershaw T et al (2005) Early results after prodisc-c cervical disc replacement. J Neurosurg Spine 2:403–410

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bohlman HH, Emery SE, Goodfellow DB, Jones PK (1993) Robinson anterior cervical diskectomy and arthrodesis cervical for cervical radiculopathy. J Bone Joint Surg Am 75:1298–1307

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Caspar W, Geisler FH, Pitzen T, Johnson TA (1998) Anterior cervical plate stabilisation in one- and two level degenerative disease: overtreatment or benefit? J Spinal Disord 11:1–11

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Cloward RD (1961) Treatment of acute fractures and fracture dislocation of cervical spine by vertebral body fusion: A report of 11 cases. J Neurosurg 18:205–209

    Google Scholar 

  7. Cummins BH, Robertson JT, Gill SS (1998) Surgical experience with an implanted artificial cervical joint. J Neurosurg 88:943–948

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Delamarter RB, Fribourg DM, Kanim LEA, Bae H (2003) ProDisc artificial total lumbar disc replacement: introduction and early results from the United States. Spine 28:167–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Di Angelo DJ, Foley KT (2004) An improved biomechanical testing protocol for evaluating spinal arthroplasty and motion preservation devices in a multilevel human cadaveric model. Neurosurg Focus 17:E7

    Google Scholar 

  10. Di Angelo DJ, Foley KT, Morrow BR, Schwab JS, Song J, German JW, et al (2004) In vitro biomechanics of cervical disc arthroplasty with the ProDisc-C total disc replacement. Neurosurg Focus 17:E7

    Google Scholar 

  11. Downie WW, Leatham PA, Rhind VM, Wright V, Branco JA, Anderson JA (1978) Studies with pain rating scales. Ann Rheum Dis 37: 378–381

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Duggl N, Pickett GE, Mitsis DK, Keller JL (2004) Early clinical and biomechanical results following cervica arthoplatsy. Neurosurg Focus 17:E9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Goffin J, Casey A, Kehr P, Liebig K, Lind B, Logroscino C et al (2003) Preliminary clinical experience with the Bryan Cervical Disc Prosthesis. Neurosurgery 53:785–786

    Google Scholar 

  14. Goffin J, Van Calenbergh F, Van Loon J, Casey A, Kehr P, Liebig K et al (2003) Intermediate follow-up after treatment of degenerative disc disease with the Bryan Cervical Disc Prothesis: single-level and bi-level. Spine 28:2673–2678

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Gore DR, Sepic SB (1998) Anterior diskectomy and fusion for painful cervical disc disease: a report of 50 patients with an average follow-up of 21 years. Spine 23:2047–2051

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Hilibrand AS, Carlson GD, Palumbo MA, Jones PK, Bohlman HH (1999) Radiculopathy and myelopathy at segments adjacent to the site of a previous anterior cervical arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 81:519–528

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Hilibrand AS, Robbins M (2004) Adjacent segment degeneration and adjacent segment disease: the consequences of spinal fusion? Spine J 4:190S–194S

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Johnsson R, Selvik G, Stromqvist B, Sunden G (1990) Mobility of the lower lumbar spine after posterolateral fusion determined by roentgen stereophotogrammetric analysis. Spine 15:347–350

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Karrholm J (1989) Roentgen stereophotogrammetry: review of orthopedic applications. Acta Orthop Scand 60: 491–503

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Karrholm J, Hansson LI, Selvik G (1985) Mobility of the lateral malleolus: A roentgen stereophotogrammetric analysis. Acta Orthop Scand 56: 479–483

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Karrholm J, Jonsson H, Nilsson KG, Soderqvist I (1994) Kinematics of successful knee prostheses during weight-bearing: three- dimensional movements and positions of screw axes in the Tricon-M and Miller-Galante designs. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2:50–59

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Langley GB, Sheppeard H (1985) The visual analogue scale: its use in pain measurement. Rheumatol Int 5:145–148

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Link HD, MC Afee PC, Pimenta L (2004) Choosing a cervical disc replacement. Spine J 4:294–302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Matsunaga S, Kabayama S, Yamamoto T, Yone K, Sakou T, Nakanishi K (1999) Strain on intervertebral discs after anterior cervical decompression and fusion. Spine 24:670–675

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Oskouian RJ, Whitehill R, Samii A, Shaffrey ME, Johnson JP, Shaffrey CI (2004) The future of spinal arthroplasty: a biomaterial perspective. Neurosurg Focus 17:10–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Pape D, Adam F, Fritsch E, Muller K, Kohn D (2000) Primary lumbosacral stability after open posterior and endoscopic anterior fusion with interbody implants: a Roentgen stereophotogrammetric analysis. Spine 25:2514–2518

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Parkinson JF, Sekhon LH (2005) Cervical arthroplasty complicated by delayed spontaneous fusion, case report. J Neurosurg Spine 2:377–380

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Pickett GE, Mitsis DK, Sekhon LH, Sears WR, Duggal N (2004) Effect of cervical disc prosthesis on segmental and cervical spine alignment. Neurosurg Focus 17:30–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Pimenta L, McAfee PC, Cappuccino A, Bellera FP, Link HD (2004) Clinical experience with the new artificial cervical PCM (Cervitech) disc. Spine J 4:315–321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Price DD, Bush FM, Long S, Harkins SW (1994) A comparison of pain measurement characteristics of mechanical visual and simple numerical rating scales. Pain 56:217–226

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Puttlitz CM, Rousseau MA, Xu ZBS, Hu S, Tay Bk-B, Lotz JC (2004) Intervertebral disc replacement maintains cervical spine kinetics. Spine 29:2809–2814

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Ragnarsson JI, Eliasson P, Karrholm J, Lundstrom B (1992) The accuracy of measurements of femoral neck fractures. Conventional radiography versus roentgen stereophotogrammetric analysis. Acta Orthop Scand 63:152–156

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Reitman CA, Hipp JA, Nguyen L, Essen SI (2004) Changes in segmental intervertebral motion adjacent to cervical arthrodesis: a prospective study. Spine 29:E221–E226

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Robertson JT, Newton HM (2004) Long-term outcome after implantation of the prestige I disc in an end-stage indication: 4-years results from a pilot study. Neurosurg Focus 17:69–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Sekhon LH (2004) Cervical arthroplasty in the managment of spondylotic myelopathy: 18-month results. Neurosurg Focus 15:E8

    Google Scholar 

  36. Selvik G, Alberius P, Aronson AS (1983) A roentgen stereophotogrammetric system, construction, calibration and technical accuracy. Acta Radiol Diagn (Stockh) 24:343–352

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Selvik G (1990) Roentgen stereophotogrammetric analysis. Acta Radiol 31:113–126

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Shinomiya K, Okamoto A, Kamikozuru M, Furuya K, Yamaura Il (1993) An analysis of failures in primary cervical anterior spinal cord decompression and fusion. J Spinal Disord 6:277–288

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Simmons E, Bhalla S (1969) Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. J Bone Joint Surg Br 51:225–237

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Smith HE, Wimberley DW, Vaccaro AR (2004) Cervical arthroplasty: material properties. Neurosurg Focus 17:15–21

    Google Scholar 

  41. Tropiano P, Huang RC, Girardi FP, Marnay T (2003) Lumbar disc replacement, preliminary results with ProDisc II after a minimum follow-up period of 1 year. J Spinal Disord 16:362–368

    Google Scholar 

  42. Whitecloud TS, LaRoocca SH (1976) Fibular strut graft in reconstructive surgery of the cervical spine. Spine 1:33–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Wigfield CC, Gill SS, Nelson RJ, Metcalf NH, Robertson JT (2002) The new Frenchay artificial cervical joint: results from a two-year pilot study. Spine 27:2446–2452

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Wu W, Thuomas KA, Hedlund R, Leszniewski W, Vavruch L (1996) Degenerative changes following anterior cervical discectomy and fusion evaluated by fast spin-echo MR imaging. Acta Radiol 37:614–617

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Zoegea B, Kärrholm J, Lind B (1998) Plate fixation adds stability to two-level anterior fusion in the cervical spine: a randomised study using radiostereometry. Eur Spine J 7:302–307

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Neurosurgery, University of Saarland, Homburg, Germany

    A. Nabhan, T. Pitzen, W. I. Steudel & K. Shariat

  2. Department of Neuroradiology, University of Saarland, Homburg, Germany

    F. Ahlhelm

  3. Department of Orthopedics, University of Saarland, Homburg, Germany

    J. Jung, O. Steimer, F. Bachelier & D. Pape

Authors
  1. A. Nabhan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. F. Ahlhelm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. T. Pitzen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. W. I. Steudel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. J. Jung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. K. Shariat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. O. Steimer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. F. Bachelier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. D. Pape
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. Nabhan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Nabhan, A., Ahlhelm, F., Pitzen, T. et al. Disc replacement using Pro-Disc C versus fusion: a prospective randomised and controlled radiographic and clinical study. Eur Spine J 16, 423–430 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-006-0226-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-006-0226-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation