Adjacent Segment Motion After Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Versus ProDisc-C Cervical Total Disk Arthroplasty: Analysis from a Randomized, Controlled Trial

Post hoc analysis of data acquired in a prospective, randomized, controlled trial. To compare adjacent segment motion after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) versus cervical total disc arthroplasty (TDA). TDA has been designed to be a motion-preserving device, thus theoretically normali...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Spine (Philadelphia, Pa. 1976) Pa. 1976), 2011-07, Vol.36 (15), p.1171-1179
Hauptverfasser: KELLY, Michael P, MOK, James M, FRISCH, Richard F, TAY, Bobby K
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Post hoc analysis of data acquired in a prospective, randomized, controlled trial. To compare adjacent segment motion after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) versus cervical total disc arthroplasty (TDA). TDA has been designed to be a motion-preserving device, thus theoretically normalizing adjacent segment kinematics. Clinical studies with short-term follow-up have yet to demonstrate a consistent significant difference in the incidence of adjacent segment disease. Two hundred nine patients at 13 sites were treated in a prospective, randomized, controlled trial of ACDF versus TDA for single-level symptomatic cervical degenerative disc disease (SCDD). Flexion and extension radiographs were obtained at all follow-up visits. Changes in ROM were compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test and the Mann-Whitney U test. Predictors of postoperative ROM were determined by multivariate analysis using mixed effects linear regression. Data for 199 patients were available with 24-month follow-up. The groups were similar with respect to baseline demographics. A significant increase in motion at the cranial and caudal adjacent segments after surgery was observed in the ACDF group only (cranial: ACDF: +1.4° (0.4, 2.4), P = 0.01; TDA: +0.8°, (-0.1, +1.7), P = 0.166; caudal: ACDF: +2.6° (1.3, 3.9), P < 0.0001; TDA: +1.3, (-0.2, +2.8), P = 0.359). No significant difference in adjacent segment ROM was observed between ACDF and TDA. Only time was a significant predictor of postoperative ROM at both the cranial and caudal adjacent segments. Adjacent segment kinematics may be altered after ACDF and TDA. Multivariate analysis showed time to be a significant predictor of changes in adjacent segment ROM. No association between the treatment chosen (ACDF vs. TDA) and ROM was observed. Furthermore clinical follow-up is needed to determine whether possible differences in adjacent segment motion affect the prevalence of adjacent segment disease in the two groups.
ISSN:0362-2436
1528-1159
DOI:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181ec5c7d