Kinematics of the cervical adjacent segments after disc arthroplasty compared with anterior discectomy and fusion: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Spine

Volumn 37, Issue SUPPL. 22, 2012, Pages

  Anderson, Paul A ^a   Sasso, Rick C ^b   Hipp, John ^c   Norvell, Daniel C ^d   Raich, Annie ^d   Hashimoto, Robin ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

^b INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c Medical Metrics Inc   (United States)

^d Spectrum Research Inc   (United States)

Author keywords

adjacent segment degeneration; cervical arthroplasty; cervical fusion; spinal kinematics; total disc replacement

Indexed keywords

ARTHROPLASTY; CERVICAL SPINE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; INTERVERTEBRAL DISKECTOMY; KINEMATICS; LORDOSIS; META ANALYSIS; MOTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); RANGE OF MOTION; REVIEW; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW;

ARTHROPLASTY; BIOMECHANICS; CERVICAL VERTEBRAE; DISKECTOMY; HUMANS; INTERVERTEBRAL DISC; SPINAL FUSION; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84867746062     PISSN: 03622436     EISSN: 15281159     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31826d6628     Document Type: Review

References (27)

1. Dahl MC, Rouleau JP, Papadopoulos S, et al. Dynamic characteristics of the intact, fused, and prosthetic-replaced cervical disk. J Biomech Eng 2006; 128: 809-14. (Pubitemid 46144909)
2. Eck JC, Humphreys SC, Lim TH, et al. Biomechanical study on the effect of cervical spine fusion on adjacent-level intradiscal pressure and segmental motion. Spine 2002; 27: 2431-4. (Pubitemid 35346149)
3. Fuller DA, Kirkpatrick JS, Emery SE, et al. A kinematic study of the cervical spine before and after segmental arthrodesis. Spine 1998; 23: 1649-56. (Pubitemid 28433863)
4. Chang UK, Kim DH, Lee MC, et al. Changes in adjacent-level disc pressure and facet joint force after cervical arthroplasty compared with cervical discectomy and fusion. J Neurosurg Spine 2007; 7: 33-9. (Pubitemid 47067737)
5. Dmitriev AE, Cunningham BW, Hu N, et al. Adjacent level intradiscal pressure and segmental kinematics following a cervical total disc arthroplasty: An in vitro human cadaveric model. Spine 2005; 30: 1165-72. (Pubitemid 40695927)
6. Wright JG, Swiontkowski MF, Heckman JD. Introducing levels of evidence to the journal. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2003; 85-A: 1-3. (Pubitemid 36537965)
7. Norvell DC, Dettori JR, Skelly AC, et al. Methodology for the systematic reviews on adjacent segment pathology. Spine 2012; 37: S10-7.
8. Atkins D, Best D, Briss PA, et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2004; 328: 1490.
9. West S, King V, Carey TS, et al. Systems to Rate the Strength of Scientific Evidence. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 47. Prepared by the Research Triangle Institute-University of North Carolina Evidence-Based Practice Center, Contract No. 290-97-0011.
10. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2002.
11. Anakwenze OA, Auerbach JD, Milby AH, et al. Sagittal cervical alignment after cervical disc arthroplasty and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: Results of a prospective, randomized, controlled trial. Spine 2009; 34: 2001-7.
12. Auerbach JD, Anakwenze OA, Milby AH, et al. Segmental contribution toward total cervical range of motion: A comparison of cervical disc arthroplasty and fusion. Spine 2011; 36: E1593-9.
13. Nabhan A, Ishak B, Steudel WI, et al. Assessment of adjacent-segment mobility after cervical disc replacement versus fusion: RCT with 1 year's results. Eur Spine J 2011; 20: 934-41.
14. Park DK, Lin EL, Phillips FM. Index and adjacent level kinematics after cervical disc replacement and anterior fusion: In vivo quantitative radiographic analysis. Spine 2011; 36: 721-30.
15. Peng-Fei S, Yu-Hua J. Cervical disc prosthesis replacement and interbody fusion: A comparative study. Int Orthop 2008; 32: 103-6. (Pubitemid 351170101)
16. Powell JW, Sasso RC, Metcalf NH, et al. Quality of spinal motion with cervical disk arthroplasty: Computer-aided radiographic analysis. J Spinal Disord Tech 2010; 23: 89-95.
17. Sasso RC, Metcalf NH, Hipp JA, et al. Sagittal alignment after Bryan cervical arthroplasty. Spine 2011; 36: 991-6.
18. 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.
19. Ahn PG, Kim KN, Moon SW, et al. Changes in cervical range of motion and sagittal alignment in early and late phases after total disc replacement: Radiographic follow-up exceeding 2 years. J Neurosurg Spine 2009; 11: 688-95.
20. Park JH, Roh KH, Cho JY, et al. Comparative analysis of cervical arthroplasty using mobi-c(r) and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion using the solis(r) -cage. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 2008; 44: 217-21.
21. Yi S, Lim JH, Choi KS, et al. Comparison of anterior cervical foraminotomy vs arthroplasty for unilateral cervical radiculopathy. Surg Neurol 2009; 71: 677-80, discussion 80.
22. Rabin D, Pickett GE, Bisnaire L, et al. The kinematics of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion versus artifi cial cervical disc: A pilot study. Neurosurgery 2007; 61: 100-4; discussion 4-5.
23. Reitman CA, Hipp JA, Nguyen L, et al. Changes in segmental intervertebral motion adjacent to cervical arthrodesis: A prospective study. Spine 2004; 29: E221-6.
24. Zoega B, Karrholm J, Lind B. Plate fi xation adds stability to twolevel anterior fusion in the cervical spine: A randomized study using radiostereometry. Eur Spine J 1998; 7: 302-7. (Pubitemid 28428175)
25. Zhao K, Yang C, Zhao C, et al. Assessment of non-invasive intervertebral motion measurements in the lumbar spine. J Biomech 2005; 38: 1943-6. (Pubitemid 40967973)
26. Reitman CA, Mauro KM, Nguyen L, et al. Intervertebral motion between fl exion and extension in asymptomatic individuals. Spine 2004; 29: 2832-43.
27. Cunningham BW, Hu N, Zorn CM, et al. Biomechanical comparison of single-and two-level cervical arthroplasty versus arthrodesis: Effect on adjacent-level spinal kinematics. Spine J 2010; 10: 341-9.