Cervical arthroplasty with Discover prosthesis: Clinical outcomes and analysis of factors that may influence postoperative range of motion

European Spine Journal

Volumn 22, Issue 10, 2013, Pages 2303-2309

  Li, Jun ^a   Liang, Lei ^a   Ye, Xiao Fei ^a   Qi, Min ^a   Chen, Hua Jiang ^a   Yuan, Wen ^a  

^a SECOND MILITARY MEDICAL UNIVERSITY   (China)

Author keywords

Cervical artificial disc; Cervical disc arthroplasty; Factor analysis; Range of motion

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTHROPLASTY; ARTICLE; CERVICAL DISK ARTHROPLASTY; CORRELATION COEFFICIENT; DISK PROSTHESIS; ENDOPROSTHESIS LOOSENING; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; FUNCTIONAL SPINAL UNIT ANGLE; HETEROTOPIC OSSIFICATION; HUMAN; JAPANESE ORTHOPAEDIC ASSOCIATION SCORE; LORDOSIS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MUSCULOSKELETAL SYSTEM PARAMETERS; NECK DISABILITY INDEX; ODOM CRITERIA; OVERALL CERVICAL ALIGNMENT; POSTOPERATIVE PERIOD; PREOPERATIVE EVALUATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANGE OF MOTION; SCORING SYSTEM; TREATMENT OUTCOME; VISUAL ANALOG SCALE; CERVICAL SPINE; CLINICAL TRIAL; DEGLUTITION DISORDERS; INTERVERTEBRAL DISK; JOINT CHARACTERISTICS AND FUNCTIONS; MIDDLE AGED; PHYSIOLOGY; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; RADIOGRAPHY; SURGERY; TOTAL DISC REPLACEMENT;

TITANIUM;

ADULT; AGED; CERVICAL VERTEBRAE; DEGLUTITION DISORDERS; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; INTERVERTEBRAL DISC; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; POSTOPERATIVE PERIOD; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RANGE OF MOTION, ARTICULAR; TITANIUM; TOTAL DISC REPLACEMENT; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84886768475     PISSN: 09406719     EISSN: 14320932     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00586-013-2897-z     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Chang UK, Kim DH, Lee MC, Willenberg R, Kim SH, Lim J (2007) Range of motion change after cervical arthroplasty with ProDisc-C and prestige artificial discs compared with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. J Neurosurg Spine 7(1):40-46. doi: 10.3171/spi-07/07/040
2. Rabin D, Bertagnoli R, Wharton N, Pickett GE, Duggal N (2009) Sagittal balance influences range of motion: an in vivo study with the ProDisc-C. Spine J: Off J N Am Spine Soc 9(2):128-133. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2008.01.009
3. Kang KC, Lee CS, Han JH, Chung SS (2010) The factors that influence the postoperative segmental range of motion after cervical artificial disc replacement. Spine J: Off J North Am Spine Soc 10(8):689-696. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2010.04.016
4. Du J, Li M, Liu H, Meng H, He Q, Luo Z (2011) Early follow-up outcomes after treatment of degenerative disc disease with the Discover cervical disc prosthesis. Spine J: Off J North Am Spine Soc 11(4):281-289. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2011.01.037
5. Pickett GE, Mitsis DK, Sekhon LH, Sears WR, Duggal N (2004) Effects of a cervical disc prosthesis on segmental and cervical spine alignment. Neurosurg Focus 17(3):E5
6. Sasso RC, Smucker JD, Hacker RJ, Heller JG (2007) Artificial disc versus fusion: a prospective, randomized study with 2-year follow-up on 99 patients. Spine 32(26):2933-2940. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31815d0034 (discussion 2941-2932)
7. Sasso RC, Best NM, Metcalf NH, Anderson PA (2008) Motion analysis of Bryan cervical disc arthroplasty versus anterior discectomy and fusion: results from a prospective, randomized, multicenter, clinical trial. J Spinal Disord Tech 21(6):393-399. doi: 10.1097/BSD.0b013e318150d121
8. Nabhan A, Ahlhelm F, Shariat K, Pitzen T, Steimer O, Steudel WI, Pape D (2007) The ProDisc-C prosthesis: clinical and radiological experience 1 year after surgery. Spine 32(18):1935-1941. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31813162d8
9. Park DK, Lin EL, Phillips FM (2011) Index and adjacent level kinematics after cervical disc replacement and anterior fusion: in vivo quantitative radiographic analysis. Spine 36(9):721-730. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181df10fc
10. Nabhan A, Ahlhelm F, Pitzen T, Steudel WI, Jung J, Shariat K, Steimer O, Bachelier F, Pape D (2007) Disc replacement using Pro-Disc C versus fusion: a prospective randomised and controlled radiographic and clinical study. Eur Spine J: Off Pub Eur Spine Soc Eur Spinal Deform Soc Eur Sect Cerv Spine Res Soc 16(3):423-430. doi: 10.1007/s00586-006-0226-5
11. Anakwenze OA, Auerbach JD, Milby AH, Lonner BS, Balderston RA (2009) Sagittal cervical alignment after cervical disc arthroplasty and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: results of a prospective, randomized, controlled trial. Spine 34(19):2001-2007. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181b03fe6
12. Ahn PG, Kim KN, Moon SW, Kim KS (2009) 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 11(6):688-695. doi: 10.3171/2009.7.spine0946
13. Barrey C, Champain S, Campana S, Ramadan A, Perrin G, Skalli W (2012) Sagittal alignment and kinematics at instrumented and adjacent levels after total disc replacement in the cervical spine. Eur Spine J: Off Pub Eur Spine Soc Eur Spinal Deform Soc Eur Sect Cerv Spine Res Soc 21(8):1648-1659. doi: 10.1007/s00586-012-2180-8
14. Guerin P, Obeid I, Gille O, Bourghli A, Luc S, Pointillart V, Vital JM (2012) Sagittal alignment after single cervical disc arthroplasty. J Spinal Disord Tech 25(1):10-16. doi: 10.1097/BSD.0b013e31820f916c
15. Fong SY, DuPlessis SJ, Casha S, Hurlbert RJ (2006) Design limitations of Bryan disc arthroplasty. Spine J: Off J N Am Spine Soc 6(3):233-241. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2006.01.007
16. Johnson JP, Lauryssen C, Cambron HO, Pashman R, Regan JJ, Anand N, Bray R (2004) Sagittal alignment and the Bryan cervical artificial disc. Neurosurg Focus 17(6):E14
17. McAfee PC, Cunningham BW, Devine J, Williams E, Yu-Yahiro J (2003) Classification of heterotopic ossification (HO) in artificial disk replacement. J Spinal Disord Tech 16(4):384-389
18. Garrido BJ, Taha TA, Sasso RC (2010) Clinical outcomes of Bryan cervical disc arthroplasty a prospective, randomized, controlled, single site trial with 48-month follow-up. J Spinal Disord Tech 23(6):367-371. doi: 10.1097/BSD.0b013e3181bb8568
19. Goffin J, Van Calenbergh F, van Loon J, Casey A, Kehr P, Liebig K, Lind B, Logroscino C, Sgrambiglia R, Pointillart V (2003) Intermediate follow-up after treatment of degenerative disc disease with the Bryan cervical disc prosthesis: single-level and bi-level. Spine 28(24):2673-2678. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000099392.90849.aa
20. Heidecke V, Burkert W, Brucke M, Rainov NG (2008) Intervertebral disc replacement for cervical degenerative disease - clinical results and functional outcome at two years in patients implanted with the Bryan cervical disc prosthesis. Acta Neurochir 150(5):453-459. doi: 10.1007/s00701-008-1552-7 (discussion 459)
21. Beaurain J, Bernard P, Dufour T, Fuentes JM, Hovorka I, Huppert J, Steib JP, Vital JM, Aubourg L, Vila T (2009) Intermediate clinical and radiological results of cervical TDR (Mobi-C) with up to 2 years of follow-up. Eur Spine J: Off Pub Eur Spine Soc Eur Spinal Deform Soc Eur Sect Cerv Spine Res Soc 18(6):841-850. doi: 10.1007/s00586-009-1017-6
22. Suchomel P, Jurak L, Benes V 3rd, Brabec R, Bradac O, Elgawhary S (2010) Clinical results and development of heterotopic ossification in total cervical disc replacement during a 4-year follow-up. Eur Spine J: Off Pub Eur Spine Soc Eur Spinal Deform Soc Eur Sect Cerv Spine Res Soc 19(2):307-315. doi: 10.1007/s00586-009-1259-3
23. Peng CW, Quirno M, Bendo JA, Spivak JM, Goldstein JA (2009) Effect of intervertebral disc height on postoperative motion and clinical outcomes after Prodisc-C cervical disc replacement. Spine J: Off J N Am Spine Soc 9(7):551-555. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2009.03.008
24. Tian W, Han X, Liu B, Li Q, Hu L, Li ZY, Yuan Q, He D, Xing YG (2010) Clinical and radiographic results of cervical artificial disc arthroplasty: over three years follow-up cohort study. Chin Med J 123(21):2969-2973
25. Kim SW, Paik SH, Castro PA, Baek SW, Shin DJ, Kwak YH, Ju YS (2010) Analysis of factors that may influence range of motion after cervical disc arthroplasty. Spine J: Off J N Am Spine Soc 10(8):683-688. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2010.04.027