Adjacent segment disease after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: Clinical outcomes after first repeat surgery versus second repeat surgery

Spine

Volumn 39, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 120-126

  Xu, Risheng ^a   Bydon, Mohamad ^a   Macki, Mohamed ^a   De La Garza Ramos, Rafael ^a   Sciubba, Daniel M ^a   Wolinsky, Jean Paul ^a   Witham, Timothy F ^a   Gokaslan, Ziya L ^a   Bydon, Ali ^a  

^a JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Adjacent level disease; Adjacent segment disease; Anterior; Anterior cervical; Cervical; Discectomy; Discectomy and fusion; Fusion; Outcome; Repeat; Spine

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; CERVICAL VERTEBRAE; DISKECTOMY; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS; REOPERATION; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SPINAL FUSION; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84895069847     PISSN: 03622436     EISSN: 15281159     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000000074     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Yang B, Li H, Zhang T, et al. The incidence of adjacent segment degeneration after cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA): a meta analysis of randomized controlled trials. PLoS One 2012; 7: e35032.
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 (Phila Pa 1976) 2002; 27: 2431-4.
3. Javedan SP, Dickman CA. Cause of adjacent-segment disease after spinal fusion. Lancet 1999; 354: 530-1.
4. Lee MJ, Dumonski M, Phillips FM, et al. Disc replacement adjacent to cervical fusion: a biomechanical comparison of hybrid construct versus two-level fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2011; 36: 1932-9.
5. Park DH, Ramakrishnan P, Cho TH, et al. Effect of lower two-level anterior cervical fusion on the superior adjacent level. J Neurosurg Spine 2007; 7: 336-40.
6. Park DK, Lin EL, Phillips FM. Index and adjacent level kinematics after cervical disc replacement and anterior fusion: in vivo quantitative radiographic analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2011; 36: 721-30.
7. Tian W, Han X, Liu B, et al. Clinical and radiographic results of cervical artificial disc arthroplasty: over three years follow-up cohort study. Chin Med J (Engl) 2010; 123: 2969-73.
8. DiAngelo DJ, Foley KT, Morrow BR, et al. In vitro biomechanics of cervical disc arthroplasty with the ProDisc-C total disc implant. Neurosurg Focus 2004; 17: E7.
9. Kowalczyk I, Lazaro BC, Fink M, et al. Analysis of in vivo kinematics of 3 different cervical devices: Bryan disc, ProDisc-C, and Prestige LP disc. J Neurosurg Spine 15: 630-5.
10. Matsunaga S, Kabayama S, Yamamoto T, et al. Strain on intervertebral discs after anterior cervical decompression and fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1999; 24: 670-5.
11. McAfee PC, Cunningham BW, Hayes V, et al. Biomechanical analysis of rotational motions after disc arthroplasty: implications for patients with adult deformities. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2006; 31: S152-60.
12. Prasarn ML, Baria D, Milne E, et al. Adjacent-level biomechanics after single versus multilevel cervical spine fusion. J Neurosurg Spine 2012; 16: 172-7.
13. Puttlitz CM, Rousseau MA, Xu Z, et al. Intervertebral disc replacement maintains cervical spine kinetics. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2004; 29: 2809-14.
14. Rihn JA, Lawrence J, Gates C, et al. Adjacent segment disease after cervical spine fusion. Instr Course Lect 2009; 58: 747-56.
15. Baba H, Furusawa N, Imura S, et al. Late radiographic findings after anterior cervical fusion for spondylotic myeloradiculopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1993; 18: 2167-73.
16. Bartolomei JC, Theodore N, Sonntag VK. Adjacent level degeneration after anterior cervical fusion: a clinical review. Neurosurg Clin N Am 2005; 16: 575-87, v.
17. Bohlman HH, Emery SE, Goodfellow DB, et al. Robinson anterior cervical discectomy and arthrodesis for cervical radiculopathy. Long-term follow-up of one hundred and twenty-two patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1993; 75: 1298-307.
18. Botelho RV, Moraes OJ, Fernandes GA, et al. A systematic review of randomized trials on the effect of cervical disc arthroplasty on reducing adjacent-level degeneration. Neurosurg Focus 2010; 28: E5.
19. Cunningham MR, Hershman S, Bendo J. Systematic review of cohort studies comparing surgical treatments for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2010; 35: 537-43.
20. Elsawaf A, Mastronardi L, Roperto R, et al. Effect of cervical dynamics on adjacent segment degeneration after anterior cervical fusion with cages. Neurosurg Rev 2009; 32: 215-24; discussion 24.
21. Fuller DA, Kirkpatrick JS, Emery SE, et al. A kinematic study of the cervical spine before and after segmental arthrodesis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1998; 23: 1649-56.
22. Goffin J, Casey A, Kehr P, et al. Preliminary clinical experience with the Bryan cervical disc prosthesis. Neurosurgery 2002; 51: 840-5; discussion 5-7.
23. Goffin J, Geusens E, Vantomme N, et al. Long-term follow-up after interbody fusion of the cervical spine. J Spinal Disord Tech 2004; 17: 79-85.
24. Nunley PD, Jawahar A, Kerr EJ III, et al. Factors affecting the incidence of symptomatic adjacent-level disease in cervical spine after total disc arthroplasty: 2- to 4-year follow-up of 3 prospective randomized trials. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2012; 37: 445-51.
25. Terai T, Faizan A, Sairyo K, et al. Operated and adjacent segment motions for fusion versus cervical arthroplasty: a pilot study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2011; 469: 682-7.
26. Yu J, Wang Z, Kinzler KW, et al. PUMA mediates the apoptotic response to p53 in colorectal cancer cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2003; 100: 1931-6.
27. Gore DR, Gardner GM, Sepic SB, et al. Roentgenographic findings following anterior cervical fusion. Skeletal Radiol 1986; 15: 556-9.
28. 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.
29. Hilibrand AS, Robbins M. Adjacent segment degeneration and adjacent segment disease: the consequences of spinal fusion? Spine J 2004; 4: 190S-4S.
30. Coric D, Cassis J, Carew JD, et al. Prospective study of cervical arthroplasty in 98 patients involved in 1 of 3 separate investigational device exemption studies from a single investigational site with a minimum 2-year follow-up. Clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 2010; 13: 715-21.
31. Coric D, Nunley PD, Guyer RD, 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: 348-58.
32. Mummaneni PV, Amin BY, Wu JC, et al. Cervical artificial disc replacement versus fusion in the cervical spine: a systematic review comparing long-term follow-up results from two FDA trials. Evid Based Spine Care J 2012; 3: 59-66.
33. Goldberg EJ, Singh K, Van U, et al. Comparing outcomes of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion in workman's versus non workman's compensation population. Spine 2002; 2: 408-14.