Early follow-up outcomes after treatment of degenerative disc disease with the discover cervical disc prosthesis

Spine Journal

Volumn 11, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 281-289

  Du, Junjie ^a   Li, Mo ^a   Liu, Hao ^a   Meng, Hao ^a   He, Qizhen ^a   Luo, Zhuojing ^a  

^a FOURTH MILITARY MEDICAL UNIVERSITY   (China)

Author keywords

Arthroplasty; Cervical disc prosthesis; Degenerative cervical disc disease; Discover artificial cervical disc

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTHROPLASTY; ARTICLE; CERVICAL DISC PROSTHESIS; CERVICAL SPINE; CHINESE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; DEGENERATIVE DISEASE; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HETEROTOPIC OSSIFICATION; HUMAN; JOINT FUNCTION; MALE; PAIN ASSESSMENT; POSTOPERATIVE PERIOD; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTHESIS; SURGICAL TECHNIQUE; TREATMENT OUTCOME; VISUAL ANALOG SCALE;

ADULT; AGED; ARTHROPLASTY, REPLACEMENT; BIOMECHANICS; CERVICAL VERTEBRAE; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; INTERVERTEBRAL DISK; INTERVERTEBRAL DISK DEGENERATION; JOINT PROSTHESIS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PROSTHESIS IMPLANTATION; RANGE OF MOTION, ARTICULAR; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 79953862779     PISSN: 15299430     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2011.01.037     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Hilibrand AS, Carlson GD, Palumbo MA, et al. Radiculopathy and myelopathy at segments adjacent to the site of a previous anterior cervical arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1999;81:519-28. (Pubitemid 29211592)
2. Hilibrand AS, Robbins M. Adjacent segment degeneration and adjacent segment disease: the consequences of spinal fusion? Spine J 2004;4(6 Suppl):190S-4S.
3. Matsunaga S, Kabayama S, Yamamoto T, et al. Strain on intervertebral discs after anterior cervical decompression and fusion. Spine 1999;24:670-5. (Pubitemid 29162910)
4. Peng CW, Quirnoa M, Bendo JA, et al. Effect of intervertebral disc height on postoperative motion and clinical outcomes after Prodisc- C cervical disc replacement. Spine J 2009;9:551-5.
5. Auerbach JD, Jones KJ, Fras CI, et al. The prevalence of indications and contraindications to cervical total disc replacement. Spine J 2008;8:711-6.
6. Yi S, Shin HC, Kim KN, et al. Modified techniques to prevent sagittal imbalance after cervical arthroplasty. Spine 2007;32:1986-91. (Pubitemid 47301001)
7. Baba H, Furusawa N, Imura S, et al. Late radiographic findings after anterior cervical fusion for spondylotic myeloradiculopathy. Spine 1993;18:2167-73. (Pubitemid 23336048)
8. DePalma AF, Rothman RH, Lewinnek GE, et al. Anterior interbody fusion for severe cervical disc degeneration. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1972;134:755-8.
9. Gore DR, Sepic SB. Anterior cervical fusion for degenerated or protruded discs. A review of one hundred forty-six patients. Spine 1984;9:667-71.
10. Murrey D, Janssen M, Delamarter R, et al. Results of the prospective, randomized, controlled multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study of the ProDisc-C total disc replacement versus anterior discectomy and fusion for the treatment of 1-level symptomatic cervical disc disease. Spine J 2009;9:275-86.
11. Silber JS, Anderson DG, Daffner SD, et al. Donor site morbidity after anterior iliac crest bone harvest for single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Spine 2003;28:134-9. (Pubitemid 36110079)
12. St. John TA, Vaccaro AR, Sah AP, et al. Physical and monetary costs associated with autogenous bone graft harvesting. Am J Orthop 2003;32:18-23.
13. Goffin J, Casey A, Kehr P, et al. Preliminary clinical experience with the Bryan Cervical Disc Prosthesis. Neurosurgery 2002;51:840-5.
14. Goffin J. Intermediate follow-up after treatment of degenerative disc disease with the Bryan Cervical Disc Prosthesis: single-level and bi-level. Spine 2003;28:2673-8.
15. Kim SW, Limson MA, Kim SB, et al. Comparison of radiographic changes after ACDF versus Bryan disc arthroplasty in single and bi-level cases. Eur Spine J 2009;18:218-31.
16. Vernon H, Mior S. The Neck Disability Index: a study of reliability and validity. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1991;14:409-15.
17. Westaway M, Stratford P, Binkley J. The patient-specific functional scale: validation of its use in persons with neck dysfunction. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 1998;27:331-8. (Pubitemid 28194475)
18. Yang SH, Wu XH, Hu Y, et al. Early and intermediate follow-up results after treatment of degenerative disc disease with the Bryan cervical disc prosthesis. Spine 2008;33:E371-7.
19. Odom GL, Finney W, Woodhall B. Cervical disc lesions. JAMA 1958;166:23-8.
20. Sahoo PK, Bhatoe HS. Cervical disc replacement for spondylotic myeloradiculopathy. MJAFI 2006;62:112-5.
21. Pickett GE, Mitsis DK, Sekhon LH, et al. Effects of a cervical disc prosthesis on segmental and cervical spine alignment. Neurosurg Focus 2004;17:E5.
22. Rabin D, Bertagnoli R, Wharton N, et al. Sagittal balance influences range ofmotion: an invivo study with ProDisc-C. Spine J 2009;9:129-33.
23. Liu F, Cheng J, Komistek R, et al. In vivo evaluation of dynamic characteristics of the normal, fused, and disc replacement pines. Spine 2007;32:2578-84.
24. Pickett GE, Rouleau JP, Duggal N. Kinematic analysis of the cervical spine following implantation of an artificial cervical disc. Spine 2005;30:1949-54. (Pubitemid 41292218)
25. Shim CS, Lee SH, Park HJ, et al. Early clinical and radiologic outcomes of cervical arthroplasty with Bryan Cervical Disc prosthesis. J Spinal Disord Tech 2006;19:465-70. (Pubitemid 44526742)
26. Fong SY, Du Plessis SJ, Casha S, et al. Design limitations of Bryan disc arthroplasty. Spine 2006;6:233-41.
27. Sears WR, Duggal N, Sekhon LH, et al. Segmental malalignment with the Bryan cervical disc prosthesis - contributing factors. J Spinal Disord Tech 2007;20:111-7. (Pubitemid 46588320)