Does CTDR have a lower risk of device subsidence compared to ACDF?

Similar documents
Systematic review Cervical artificial disc replacement versus fusion in the cervical spine: a systematic review (...)

5/19/2017. Disclosures. Introduction. How Much Kyphosis is Allowable for Cervical Total Disc Replacement? And Other Considerations

Four-year results of a prospective single-arm study on 200 semi-constrained total cervical disc prostheses: clinical and radiographic outcome

Matthew Colman, MD Assistant Professor, Spine Surgery and Musculoskeletal Oncology Rush University Medical Center ACDF

Artificial Disc Replacement, Cervical

Artificial Disc Replacement, Cervical

Two-Level Cervical Total Disc Replacement versus ACDF: Results of a Prospective, Randomized, Clinical Trial with 48 Months Follow-up

ProDisc-C versus fusion with Cervios chronos prosthesis in cervical degenerative disc disease: Is there a difference at 12 months?

*Saleh Baeesa1, MB.ChB, FRCSC, FAANS., Márton Rónai 2, M.D. & Jan Štulík 3, M.D. P h.d.

Cervical Motion Preservation

EFSPINE CERVICAL COMBINED SET DISC PROTHESIS ORGANIZER BOX

3D titanium interbody fusion cages sharx. White Paper

Cervical Curvature Became More Lordotic in Flexion Post-Operatively Regardless of Type of Surgical Approach in Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy

Heterotopic ossification in cervical disc arthroplasty: Is it clinically relevant?

PARADIGM SPINE. Anterior Cervical Fusion Cage. Cervical Interbody Fusion

Early Radiological Analysis of Cervical Arthroplasty with Bryan and Mobi-C Cervical Disc Prosthesis

Mobi-C CERVICAL DISC TWO-LEVEL APPLICATIONS

5/27/2016. Stand-Alone Lumbar Lateral Interbody Fusion (LLIF) vs. Supplemental Fixation. Disclosures. LLIF Approach

TOTAL ARTIFICIAL DISC REPLACEMENT FOR THE SPINE

The Artificial Cervical Disc: 2016 update

Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion surgery versus total disc replacement: A comparative study with minimum of 10-year follow-up

Clinical and radiographic outcome of dynamic cervical implant (DCI) arthroplasty for degenerative cervical disc disease: a minimal five-year follow-up

Adjacent Segment Degeneration Following Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Versus the Bryan Cervical Disc Arthroplasty

Induction and Maintenance of Lordosis in MultiLevel ACDF Using Allograft. Saad Khairi, MD Jennifer Murphy Robert S. Pashman, MD

ProDisc-L Total Disc Replacement. IDE Clinical Study

Interbody fusion cage for the transforaminal approach. Travios. Surgical Technique

Artificial Intervertebral Disc: Cervical Spine. Description

TOTAL ARTIFICIAL DISC REPLACEMENT FOR THE SPINE

TOTAL ARTIFICIAL DISC REPLACEMENT FOR THE SPINE

porous titanium cervical implants.

ASJ. Outcome of Salvage Lumbar Fusion after Lumbar Arthroplasty. Asian Spine Journal. Introduction. Hussein Alahmadi, Harel Deutsch

Long term prognosis of young adults after ACDF

Medical Policy An independent licensee of the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association

Uncosectomy Facilitated Cervical Foraminotomy using a new high-speed shielded curved device

Increased Fusion Rates With Cervical Plating for Two- Level Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion

Cervical artificial disc replacement versus fusion in the cervical spine: a systematic review comparing multilevel versus single-level surgery

Incidence and Risk Factors for Late Neurologic Deterioration after C3-6 Laminoplasty in Patients with Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy

Cervical total disc replacement (TDR) is intended

Artificial Intervertebral Disc: Cervical Spine

Short Segment Screw Fixation without Fusion for Low Lumbar Burst Fracture: Severe Canal Compromise but Neurologically Intact Cases

Quality of Life. Quality of Motion.

SynCage-C short. Surgical Technique. This publication is not intended for distribution in the USA.

Case Report Two-year follow-up results of artificial disc replacement C7-T1

Artificial Intervertebral Disc Replacement - Cervical

Corporate Medical Policy

The Fusion of Power and Performance.

Medium-term outcomes of artificial disc replacement for severe cervical disc narrowing

Stand-Alone Technology. Reginald Davis, M.D., FAANS, FACS Director of Clinical Research

Coflex TM for Lumbar Stenosis with

Quintex Cervical Plating System

DISCLOSURES. Goal of Fusion. Expandable Cages: Do they play a role in lumbar MIS surgery? CON 2/15/2017

Mobi-C Cervical Disc Bibliography as of September 2015

Comprehension of the common spine disorder.

Outcomes and revision rates following multilevel anterior cervical discectomy and fusion

TOTAL ARTIFICIAL DISC REPLACEMENT FOR THE SPINE

Computed tomography analysis of L5-S1 fusion in Adult spinal deformity

A Computational Model of Annulus Fiber Deformation in Cervical Discs During In Vivo Dynamic Flexion\Extension, Rotation and Lateral Bending

ProDisc Artificial Total Lumbar Disc Replacement: Introduction and Early Results From the United States Clinical Trial

Cervical Solutions. Mobi-C. Cervical Disc. IDE Clinical Trial Overview Mobi-C Compared to Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion at One-level

Adjacent segment disease after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion

Anterior cervical interbody fusion with radiolucent carbon fiber cages : clinical and radiological results

GECO 2010 LES-ARCS FRANCE LP-ESP II Elastic Spine PAD2 FH-ORTHOPEDICS

Artificial Intervertebral Disc: Cervical Spine

Facet Arthroplasty. Policy Number: Last Review: 9/2018 Origination: 9/2009 Next Review: 3/2019

Surgical technique. SynCage-C short

IN VIVO CERVICAL SPINE KINEMATICS, ARTHROKINEMATICS AND DISC LOADING IN ASYMPTOMATIC CONTROL SUBJECTS AND ANTERIOR FUSION PATIENTS.

Distractable Vertebral Cages for Reconstruction After Cervical Corpectomy

REFERENCE DOCTOR Thoracolumbar Trauma MIS Options. Hyeun Sung Kim, MD, PhD,

Intermediate Clinical Outcome of Bryan Cervical Disc Replacement for Degenerative Disk Disease and Its Effect on Adjacent Segment Disks

Artificial Intervertebral Disc: Cervical Spine

AVS ARIA TM Product Overview

POLICY PRODUCT VARIATIONS DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND RATIONALE DEFINITIONS BENEFIT VARIATIONS DISCLAIMER CODING INFORMATION REFERENCES POLICY HISTORY

PREPARED FOR. Marsha Eichhorn DATE OF INJURY : N/A DATE OF ANALYSIS : 12/14/2016 DATE OF IMAGES : 12/8/2016. REFERRING DOCTOR : Dr.

C-THRU Anterior Spinal System

Comparisons of three anterior cervical surgeries in treating cervical spondylotic myelopathy

ProDisc-L Total Disc Replacement. IDE Clinical Study.

Hybrid Surgery of Multilevel Cervical Degenerative Disc Disease : Review of Literature and Clinical Results

L owbackpainisanexceedinglycommoncauseofdisability

Unanswered Questions. Laminoplasty is best

ANTERIOR CERVICAL FUSION CERVICAL TOTAL DISC ARTHROPLASTY

Lumbar Facet Joint Replacement

Clinical and radiological outcomes following hybrid surgery in the treatment of multi-level cervical spondylosis: over a 2-year follow-up

Hiroto Yamaguchi*, Hidetoshi Nojiri**, Kei Miyagawa*, Nozomu Inoue***

Mobi-C. Cervical Disc. Mobi-C demonstrated superiority in overall trial success compared to ACDF at two-levels

Instructions for use Prodisc -C Vivo Cervical disc prosthesis

Fusion Device. Surgical Technique. Cervical Interbody Fusion with Trabecular Metal Technology

Surgery in cervical disc herniation: anterior cervical discectomy without fusion or with fusion

Fixation of multiple level anterior cervical disc using cages versus cages and plating

Adjacent segment disease and C-ADR: promises fulfilled?

Innovative Techniques in Minimally Invasive Cervical Spine Surgery. Bruce McCormack, MD San Francisco California

EXACTECH SPINE. Operative Technique. Cervical Spacer System. Surgeon focused. Patient driven. TM

Techniques for anterior cervical decompression for radiculopathy

Orange County Neurosurgical Associates, Laguna Hills; 4 Department of Research, Cedars Sinai Spine Center, Los Angeles; 6

Intervertebral Disc Prostheses

Effect of Swallowing Function After ROI-C Anterior Cervical Interbody Fusion

Interspinous Fusion Devices. Midterm results. ROME SPINE 2012, 7th International Meeting Rome, 6-7 December 2012

Biomechanical comparison between anterior cervical discectomy with fusion and without fusion.

Original Effective Date:6/14/06 Revision Date(s): 1/28/09, 12/14/11, 4/14

CERVICAL SPINE COURSE

Case Report Two-year follow-up results of C2/3 Prestige-LP cervical disc replacement: first report

Transcription:

Does CTDR have a lower risk of device subsidence compared to ACDF? 1 year results of a prospective multi-center study P Stosberg, H-J Meisel, P Suchomel, S Sola, J Antinheimo, J Pohjola, J Stulik, S Kroppenstedt, M O Malley, I Shackleford, R Arregui, C Woiciechowsky, B Bruchmann, F Caroli, N Borm EuroSpine Vienna, September 15th 17th, 2010 Direktor: Prof. Dr. med. HJ Meisel

Background Although ACDF is an effective procedure for the treatment of DDD, loss of segmental disc height and cage subsidence, possibly resulting in kyphotic deformity, pseudarthrosis and worsening of clinical outcome, are common concerns. Various factors may influence subsidence, but certainly the biomechanical situation at the bone-implant interface is an important one, influenced by the devices operative technique, primary stability, geometry and contact area. While the preservation of segmental motion and a lower risk for adjacent segment degeneration are the main pros for CTDR, this technology may also contribute to a reduced risk of subsidence.

Material and Methods Therefore we investigated the one year interim results (n=87) of a prospective, multicenter study, performed at 11 European sites. All patients (mean age 42,7 years; male = 35, female = 52) underwent single-level total disc replacement (activ C disc prosthesis) between C3/4 and C6/7 (C3/4=2, C4/5=4, C5/6=44, C6/7=37) and were followed-up 6 wk, 6 mo and 1 y postoperatively. Radiographic measures were performed independently by using computer-aided image processing. Disc height is calculated as the average anterior and posterior disc height (distance between anterior (posterior) edge of the inferior endplate of the superior vertebra, and the corresponding edge of the inferior vertebra).

Radiographic Results Disc height Mean disc heights were as follows: preop 3,7mm, postop 6,4mm, 6wk 5,8mm, 6mo 5,7mm, 1y 5,6mm. Statistically significant differences were detected between preop/postop, postop/6wk and 6wk/6mo (p<0,001), and after 1 year (p=0,025 Linear Contrasts, ANOVA). (Fig. 1) Fig.1 Disc height with 95% Confidence Interval

Radiographic Results Loss of disc height Mean loss of disc height by level was 1,1mm for C3/4, 1,7mm for C4/5, 0,8mm for C5/6 and 0,8mm for C6/7 (overall loss of disc height 0,8mm) (Fig. 2). The subsidence rate (loss of height > 3mm) in our study is 0% (0/87) or, based on a subsidence definition of > 2mm, 6,9% (6/87). Fig.2 Loss of disc height with 95% Confidence Interval

Radiographic Results Segmental lordosis Mean segmental lordosis increased significantly from 1,9 preop to 5,1 after 1 year (p > 0,001, Paired Samples T-Test) (Fig. 3). Fig.3 Segmental lordosis with 95% Confidence Interval

Clinical Outcome Also clinical outcome (NDI, VAS neck pain, VAS arm pain) improved significantly from preop to 1 year postop as follows: 40,0 to 18,7, 49,1 to 23,2 and 51,7 to 17,6, respectively (p < 0,001 Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test). There is no correlation between loss of disc height after 1y and clinical outcome (p > 0,05 Spearman s Correlation).

Results Fig.4 NDI with 95% CI

Results Fig.5 Neck pain with 95% CI

Results Fig.6 Arm pain with 95% CI

Conclusion Compared to literature, where cage subsidence rates of 9% - 55,6% (> 3mm) or 45% (> 2mm) are described, our results show a lower risk for subsidence, which is probably contributed to different design concepts of disc arthroplasties and cages in general and the anatomically adopted shape and geometry of the study device in particular. FINANCIAL DISLOSURE There is no actual or potential financial conflict of interest in relation to this presentation.

Acknowledgements The authors wish to thank P Suchomel, S Sola, J Antinheimo, J Pohjola, J Stulik, S Kroppenstedt, M O Malley, I Shackleford, R Arregui, C Woiciechowsky, B Bruchmann F Caroli and N Borm for their contibution to the study. This study was supported by: Regional Hospital Liberec, Neurosurgery University Hospital Rostock, Neurosurgery Helsinki University Central Hospital, Töölö Hospital, Neurosurgery University Hospital Motol, Spinal Surgery Carité Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Neurosurgery Public Hospital Warrington District General, Spinal Surgery Hospital La Maz, Neurosurgical Department Neurosurgery & Spinal Surgery in Orthopaedic Practice Katholisches Klinikum Koblenz, Spinal Surgery IFO, Neurosurgery frictionless GmbH