Cervical spine kinematics after anterior cervical discectomy with or without implantation of a mobile cervical disc prosthesis; an RCT

Toon F M Boselie, Henk van Mameren, Rob A de Bie, Henk van Santbrink, Toon F M Boselie, Henk van Mameren, Rob A de Bie, Henk van Santbrink

Abstract

Background: When surgically treating cervical degenerative disc disease, the most commonly performed procedure is anterior cervical discectomy. This procedure is performed with, or without fusion promoting methods. For both options the rate of fusion is high and there is much debate whether fusion of the treated segment is a contributing factor to accelerated degeneration of adjacent motion segments. In an effort to prevent degeneration of adjacent segments (ASDeg) due to loss of mobility at the operated level, cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) was introduced. To evaluate the effectiveness of CDA in preventing ASDeg long term studies are necessary. However, prevention of ASDeg is based on the premise that mobile disc prostheses preserve cervical spine motion in a physiological way. In this article the authors describe a short term protocol for a study that aims to investigate whether CDA reaches the intended goal: restoration or preservation of physiological cervical spine motion. To this end, a technique is used to establish the sequence of contributions of cervical motion segments to flexion/extension of the spine.

Methods: 24 subjects between 18 and 55 years old, with radicular symptoms due to a herniated disc between C5 and C7, refractory to conservative therapy are randomized to simple discectomy, or CDA. These groups are preceded by a pilot group of three subjects receiving CDA. Fluoroscopic flexion-extension recordings are acquired preoperatively, and at three and 12 months postoperative. At these same time points, patient reported outcomes are collected, and a neurological examination is performed by and independent physician.

Discussion: Studies investigating arthroplasty determine mobility by measuring segmental range of motion (sROM), which gives no information other than presence, and quantity, of mobility. SROM suffer from high variability. The authors therefore chose to use a method previously used in healthy controls, to describe the dynamic process of cervical spine motion in more detail. Determining cervical spine motion patterns has been reported to be more consistent than sROM. If a physiological motion pattern is absent after surgery in the CDA group, prevention of future ASDeg is less likely. Radiological outcomes will be correlated to clinical outcomes.

Trial registration: NCT00868335.

References

    1. Dowd GC, Wirth FP. Anterior cervical discectomy: is fusion necessary? J Neurosurg. 1999;90(1 Suppl):8–12.
    1. Gore DR, Sepic SB. Anterior discectomy and fusion for painful cervical disc disease. A report of 50 patients with an average follow-up of 21 years. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1998;23(19):2047–2051. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199810010-00002.
    1. Nandoe Tewarie RD, Bartels RH, Peul WC. Long-term outcome after anterior cervical discectomy without fusion. Eur Spine J. 2007;16(9):1411–1416. doi: 10.1007/s00586-007-0309-y.
    1. Wirth FP, Dowd GC, Sanders HF, Wirth C. Cervical discectomy. A prospective analysis of three operative techniques. Surg Neurol. 2000;53(4):340–346. doi: 10.1016/S0090-3019(00)00201-9.
    1. Hilibrand AS, Carlson GD, Palumbo MA, Jones PK, Bohlman HH. Radiculopathy and myelopathy at segments adjacent to the site of a previous anterior cervical arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1999;81(4):519–528.
    1. Seo M, Choi D. Adjacent segment disease after fusion for cervical spondylosis; myth or reality? Br J Neurosurg. 2008;22(2):195–199. doi: 10.1080/02688690701790605.
    1. Nunley PD, Jawahar A, Cavanaugh DA, Gordon CR, Kerr EJ, 3rd, Utter PA. Symptomatic adjacent segment disease after cervical total disc replacement: re-examining the clinical and radiological evidence with established criteria. Spine J. 2013;13(1):5–12. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2012.11.032.
    1. Helgeson MD, Bevevino AJ, Hilibrand AS. Update on the evidence for adjacent segment degeneration and disease. Spine J. 2013;13(3):342–351. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2012.12.009.
    1. Saavedra-Pozo FM, Deusdara RA, Benzel EC. Adjacent segment disease perspective and review of the literature. The Ochsner Journal. 2014;14(1):78–83.
    1. Boselie A, van Santbrink H, van Mameren H, de Bie R, Benzel E, Willems P: Arthroplasty versus fusion in single-level cervical degenerative disc disease. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, September 2012, 12;9.
    1. Barlocher CB, Barth A, Krauss JK, Binggeli R, Seiler RW. Comparative evaluation of microdiscectomy only, autograft fusion, polymethylmethacrylate interposition, and threaded titanium cage fusion for treatment of single-level cervical disc disease: a prospective randomized study in 125 patients. Neurosurg Focus. 2002;12(1):E4. doi: 10.3171/foc.2002.12.1.5.
    1. Alvin MD, Abbott EE, Lubelski D, Kuhns B, Nowacki AS, Steinmetz MP, Benzel EC, Mroz TE: Cervical arthroplasty: a critical review of the literature. Spine J 2014.
    1. Van Mameren H. Motion patterns in the cervical spine. Maastricht University; 1988
    1. Van Mameren H, Drukker J, Sanches H, Beursgens J. Cervical spine motion in the sagittal plane (I) range of motion of actually performed movements, an X-ray cinematographic study. European Journal of Morphology. 1990;28(1):47–68.
    1. Bogduk N, Mercer S. Biomechanics of the cervical spine. I: Normal kinematics. Clinical biomechanics (Bristol, Avon) 2000;15(9):633–648. doi: 10.1016/S0268-0033(00)00034-6.
    1. Reinartz R, Platel B, Boselie T, van Mameren H, van Santbrink H, Romeny BH. Cervical vertebrae tracking in video-fluoroscopy using the normalized gradient field. Med Image Comput Comput Assist Interv. 2009;12(Pt 1):524–531.
    1. Hilibrand AS, Robbins M. Adjacent segment degeneration and adjacent segment disease: the consequences of spinal fusion? Spine J. 2004;4(6 Suppl):190S–194S. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2004.07.007.
    1. Harrod CC, Hilibrand AS, Fischer DJ, Skelly AC. Adjacent segment pathology following cervical motion-sparing procedures or devices compared with fusion surgery: a systematic review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2012;37(22 Suppl):S96–S112. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31826cb2d6.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorit ja yhteistyökumppanit

Sairaudet

Huumeiden interventiot

3
Tilaa