Five-year reoperation rates, cervical total disc replacement versus fusion, results of a prospective randomized clinical trial

Spine

Volumn 38, Issue 9, 2013, Pages 711-717

  Delamarter, Rick B ^a   Zigler, Jack ^b  

^a CEDARS SINAI MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b TEXAS BACK INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

ACDF; Cervical disc arthroplasty; Cervical fusion; ProDisc C; Randomized clinical trial; Reoperation; Total disc replacement

Indexed keywords

ANTERIOR CERVICAL DISCECTOMY AND FUSION; ARM PAIN; CERVICAL SPINE; CERVICAL SPINE RADIOGRAPHY; CONTROLLED STUDY; DEVICE SAFETY; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; INTERVERTEBRAL DISK; INTERVERTEBRAL DISKECTOMY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; NECK PAIN; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; PSEUDARTHROSIS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; REOPERATION; REVIEW; SPINE FUSION; SPINE IMPLANT; TOTAL DISC REPLACEMENT;

FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; REOPERATION; SPINAL FUSION; TIME FACTORS; TOTAL DISC REPLACEMENT; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84878232169     PISSN: 03622436     EISSN: 15281159     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182797592     Document Type: Review

References (21)

1. Hilibrand A, Carlson G, Palumbo M, 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.
2. Murrey D, Janssen ME, Delamarter RB, et al. Results of the prospective, randomized, controlled multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigation device exemption study of the ProDisc-C total disc replacement and fusion for the treatment of one level symptomatic cervical disc disease. Spine J 2009;9:275-86.
3. Heller J, Sasso R, Papadopoulos S, et al. Comparison of BRYAN cervical disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical decompression and fusion: clinical and radiographic results of a randomized controlled clinical trial. Spine 2009;34:101-7.
4. Mummaneni PV, Burkus JK, Haid RW, et al. Clinical and radiographic analysis of cervical disc arthroplasty compared with allograft fusion: a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Neurosurg Spine 2007;6:198-9.
5. Burkus J, Haid R, Traynelis V, et al. Long-term clinical and radiographic outcomes of cervical disc replacement with the Prestige disc: results from a prospective, randomized controlled clinical trial. J Neurosurg Spine 2010;13:308-18.
6. Delamarter R, Murrey D, Janssen M, et al. Results at 24 months from the prospective, randomized, multicenter Investigational Device Exemption trial of ProDisc-C versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with 4-year follow-up and continued access patients. SAS J 2010;4:122-8.
7. Sasso R, Anderson P, Riew K, et al. Results of cervical arthroplasty compared with anterior discectomy and fusion: four-year clinical outcomes in a prospective, randomized, controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2011;93:1684-92.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. Laxer EB, Darden BV, Murrey DB, et al. Adjacent segment disc pressures following two-level cervical disc replacement versus simulated anterior cervical fusion. Stud Health Technol Inform 2006;123:488-92.
11. Wigfield CC, Gill SS, Nelson RJ, et al. Influence of an artificial cervical joint compared with fusion on adjacent-level motion in the treatment of degenerative cervical disc disease. J Neurosurg 2002;96:17-21.
12. Robertson J, Papadopoulos S, Traynelis V. Assessment of adjacent-segment disease in patients treated with cervical fusion or arthroplasty: a prospective 2-year study. J Neurosurg Spine 2005;3:417-23.
13. Zhang X, Zhang X, Chen C, et al. Randomized, controlled, multicenter, clinical trial comparing Bryan Cervical Disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical decompression and fusion in China. Spine 2012;37:433-8.
14. Auerbach J, Anakwenze O, Milby A, et al. Segmental contribution toward total cervical range of motion: a comparison of cervical disc arthroplasty and fusion. Spine 2011;36:E1593-9.
15. Zhao Y, Sun Y, Chen Z, et al. Application of cervical arthroplasty with Bryan cervical disc: long-term x-ray and magnetic resonance imaging follow-up results. Chin Med J 2010;123:2999-2.
16. Coric D, Nunley P, Guyer R, et al. Prospective, randomized, multicenter study of cervical arthroplasty: 269 patients from the Kineflex-C artificial disc investigational device exemption study with a minimum of 2-year follow-up. J Neurosurg Spine 2011;15:348-58.
17. Garrido B, Wilhite J, Nakano M, et al. Adjacent-level cervical ossification after Bryan cervical disc arthroplasty compared with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2011;93:e76.
18. Shin D, Yi S, Yoon D, et al. Artificial disc replacement combined with fusion vs two-level fusion in cervical two-level disease. Spine 2009;34:1153-9.
19. Kim S, Limson M, Kim S, 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.
20. Anderson PA, Sasso RC, Riew KD. Comparison of adverse events between the Bryan artificial cervical disc and anterior cervical arthrodesis. Spine 2008;33:1305-12.
21. Park DK, Lin EL, Philips FM. Index and adjacent level kinematics after cervical disc replacement and anterior fusion: in vivo quantitative radiographic analysis. Spine 2011;36:721-30.