How often is adjacent segment disease reported? A systematic review of prospective studies comparing total disc arthoplasty versus ACDF

Seminars in Spine Surgery

Volumn 25, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 205-208

  Gandhi, Sapan D ^b   Verma, Kushagra ^a   Albert, Todd ^a   Hilibrand, Alan ^a   Vaccaro, Alexander ^a   Radcliff, Kristen ^a  

^a THOMAS JEFFERSON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b DREXEL UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADJACENT SEGMENT DISEASE; ANTERIOR CERVICAL DECOMPRESSION AND FUSION; ARTICLE; CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS; DISEASE SEVERITY; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); RANGE OF MOTION; REOPERATION; SPINE DISEASE; SPINE SURGERY; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; TOTAL DISC ARTHROPLASTY;

EID: 84884332184     PISSN: 10407383     EISSN: 15584496     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1053/j.semss.2013.04.010     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. Hilibrand A.S., Carlson G.D., Palumbo M.A., Jones P.K., Bohlman H.H. Radiculopathy and myelopathy at segments adjacent to the site of a previous anterior cervical arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1999, 81:519-528.
2. Lund T., Oxland T.R. Adjacent level disk disease-is it really a fusion disease?. Orthop Clin North Am 2011, 42:529-541. [viii].
3. Hilibrand A.S., Robbins M. Adjacent segment degeneration and adjacent segment disease: the consequences of spinal fusion?. Spine J 2004, 4:190S-194S.
4. DiAngelo D.J., Roberston J.T., Metcalf N.H., McVay B.J., Davis R.C. Biomechanical testing of an artificial cervical joint and an anterior cervical plate. J Spinal Disord Tech 2003, 16:314-323.
5. Wigfield C., Gill S., Nelson R., Langdon I., Metcalf N., Robertson J. 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.
6. Bragge P. Asking good clinical research questions and choosing the right study design. Injury 2010, 41(suppl 1):S3-S6.
7. Nabhan A., Steudel W.I., Pape D., Ishak B. Segmental kinematics and adjacent level degeneration following disc replacement versus fusion: RCT with three years of follow-up. J Long Term Eff Med Implants 2007, 17:229-236.
8. Porchet F., Metcalf N.H. Clinical outcomes with the Prestige II cervical disc: preliminary results from a prospective randomized clinical trial. Neurosurg Focus 2004, 17:E6.
9. Sasso R.C., Anderson P.A., Riew K.D., Heller J.G. 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, 93:1684-1692.
10. Coric D., Nunley P.D., Guyer R.D., et al. Prospective, randomized, multicenter study of cervical arthroplasty: 269 patients from the Kineflex|C artificial disc investigational device exemption study with a minimum 2-year follow-up: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 2011, 15:348-358.
11. 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, 9:275-286.
12. Burkus J.K., Haid R.W., Traynelis V.C., Mummaneni P.V. 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, 13:308-318.
13. Singh K., Phillips F.M., Park D.K., Pelton M.A., An H.S., Goldberg E.J. Factors affecting reoperations after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion within and outside of a Federal Drug Administration investigational device exemption cervical disc replacement trial. Spine J 2012, 12:372-378.