后路单开门联合椎间孔切开术与前路减压融合术治疗混合型颈椎病的疗效比较

 目的 通过回顾性病例分析,评价单开门椎板成形联合椎间孔切开术(laminoplasty with foraminotomy, LF )与前路椎间盘切除减压融合术（anterior cervical discectomy and fusion,ACDF）治疗脊髓神经根型颈椎病的临床及影像学疗效。方法 自 2008 年 1 月至 2010 年 1 月,按照纳入及排除标准选取 68 例患者纳入研究,ACDF 组 33 例,LF 组 35 例,随访均超过 2 年。疗效评估采用日本骨科协会（Japanese Orthopedic Association,JOA）评分及改善率,影像学评估采用 X 线片测量颈椎曲度和颈椎活动度（range of motion, ROM）,末次随访时采用颈椎功能障碍指数量表（neck disabilitv index,NDI）评估两组患者颈肩部疼痛的改善程度。结果 ACDF 组手术时间平均 187 min、出血量平均为 127 ml,与 LF 组（154 min、235 ml）比较,差异均有统计学意义（t _手术时间=4.170,P=0.000;Z _出血量=-6.888,P=0.000）。术后两组下肢感觉改善率（ACDF 组 64.0%、 LF 组 66.0%）的差异有统计学意义（Z=-7.512,P=0.000）,而上肢运动、上肢感觉及下肢运动改善率的差异均无统计学意义。术后 3 个月时 ACDF 组出现 1 例植骨不融合,随访 2 年时 3 例出现邻近节段退变;而 LF 组未见并发症出现。末次随访时 ACDF 组在提物（Z=-3.947, P=0.000）及开车（t=-7.523,P=0.000）方面的 NDI 疼痛评分低于 LF 组。ACDF 组颈椎曲度由术前平均 13.7°增加至 16.2°,而 LF 组由 14.6°降至 13.3°（Z=-3.374,P=0.001）。两种术式均导致术后颈椎 ROM 下降（ACDF 组 14.8°、LF 组 16.5°）,但差异有统计学意义（t=-2.167,P =0.034）。结论 LF 在改善长节段颈椎间盘突出所致的颈椎髓性症状及根性症状方面与 ACDF 的临床效果相近,但具有手术时间短、手术技术相对简单、近期并发症发生率低等优势,是治疗混合型颈椎病安全、有效的手术方式。     

人工颈椎间盘置换术与前路植骨融合内固定术治疗颈椎退行性疾病的疗效比较

目的对比分析人工颈椎间盘置换术(ACDR)与颈椎前路植骨融合内固定术(ACDF)治疗颈椎退行性疾病患者的临床效果及对颈椎运动功能、邻近节段退变的影响。方法回顾性收集152例颈椎退行性疾病患者临床资料,根据选择手术方式不同分为ACDR组(n=53)和ACDF组(n=99);比较两组临床疗效以及对术后颈椎运动功能、邻近节段退变的影响。结果 ACDR组Odom分级优良率为84.91%,ACDF组为85.86%,组间差异无统计学意义(P0.05);末次随访时,两组VAS、NDI评分较术前明显降低(P0.05),JOA评分较术前明显升高(P0.05),且两组间差异无统计学意义(P0.05);末次随访时,ACDR组颈椎整体曲度、手术节段曲度、邻近节段曲度与术前比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05),而ACDF组颈椎整体活动度、手术节段活动度明显低于术前及ACDR组(P0.05),上、下邻近节段活动度明显高于术前及ACDR组(P0.05)。ACDR组ASDz发生率为13.21%,明显低于ACDF组的29.29%,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论 ACDR与ACDF疗效相当,而前者有保留手术节段活动度、维持颈椎生物力学稳定的优势,能够有效减少邻近节段退变的发生。     

人工颈椎椎间盘置换与颈前路减压融合术治疗脊髓型颈椎病的疗效分析

目的比较人工颈椎椎间盘置换术与颈前路椎间盘切除减压植骨融合术(anterior cervical discectomy and fu-sion,ACDF)治疗脊髓型颈椎病的临床疗效。方法回顾性分析本院收治的人工颈椎椎间盘置换术及ACDF治疗的脊髓型颈椎病病例。测量所有患者颈椎活动度(range of motion,ROM),置换节段及相邻节段的ROM,并行日本骨科学会(Japanese Orthopaedic Association,JOA)评分及Odom分级。结果所有患者术后JOA评分和Odom功能评定均得到显著改善。置换组术后颈椎ROM、置换节段及其邻近间隙平均ROM无明显改变,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。ACDF组患者中,术后颈椎ROM显著减小,邻近间隙ROM明显增大,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。置换组术后邻近节段的ROM明显小于ACDF组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.01)。结论人工颈椎椎间盘置换术能保持颈椎ROM,避免邻近节段退变,早、中期疗效满意,远期效果尚有待临床进一步研究。     

单节段人工椎间盘置换治疗颈椎病的中长期疗效

目的:评价单节段颈椎人工椎间盘置换(cervical disc arthroplasty,CDA)对颈椎病的中长期治疗效果。方法:2003年12月～2005年12月采用前瞻、随机、对照研究单节段Bryan假体CDA与传统前路颈椎减压融合(ACDF)手术治疗颈椎病的疗效,所有患者均按统一的纳入、排除标准进入临床研究,共80例,随机分为两组,并进行均衡性检验,一组进行CDA手术,另一组进行ACDF手术,术后经1d、3个月、6个月、1年、2年、5年及2012年6月的末次随访。其中CDA组32例、ACDF组35例完成了随访,应用动力位X线片观察置换间隙活动度,采用McAfee异位骨化分级方法评定颈椎间盘置换术后异位骨化情况,在MRI T2加权像上采用Miyaza-ki颈椎间盘退变分级方法评定两组相邻节段椎间盘退变情况,采用颈椎活动障碍指数(NDI)和疼痛视觉模拟评分(VAS)评价术后症状改善程度。结果:本组病例随访7.2~9.6年,平均8.8年。CDA组假体位置良好,无塌陷或移位发生,末次随访时矢状面假体置换间隙活动度1.20°~8.20°,平均6.35°±1.45°;32例患者中8例(25%)置换间隙发生异位骨化,其中2例(6.25%)置换节段丧失活动度;翻修3例,1例因头侧邻近间隙退变、颈椎间盘突出压迫脊髓;2例因头侧跳跃间隙后方骨赘压迫脊髓;末次随访时置换间隙相邻的其他63个节段中22个椎间盘退变分级加重1级,8个加重2级,但无相关临床症状出现。ACDF组融合率100%,翻修3例,2例因头侧邻近间隙退变、存在神经症状;1例因尾侧邻近间隙退变,压迫脊髓;其余67个相邻节段中34个椎间盘退变分级加重1级,15个加重2级,但均无相关临床症状出现。末次随访时CDA组的NDI、颈部VAS及上肢VAS评分分别为16.83±3.12、1.17±0.41及1.96±0.51分,ACDF组分别为17.21±3.53、1.23±0.35及1.86±0.62分,较术前均显著改善,但两组间比较无显著性差异(P>0.05)。结论:颈椎人工椎间盘置换术与ACDF手术治疗单节段颈椎病的中长期临床疗效间无显著性差异,颈椎人工椎间盘置换节段术后中长期可以保持一定活动度,相邻节段椎间盘退变情况好于ACDF组,可以作为单节段颈椎病的手术选择方式。     

PTED与ACDF治疗单节段神经根型颈椎病的疗效评价

目的分析颈椎后路经椎间孔镜开窗减压髓核摘除术(PTED)与颈椎前路椎间盘切除融合术(ACDF)治疗神经根型颈椎病的临床疗效。方法回顾性分析自2013-05—2015-05分别采用PTED与ACDF治疗的45例神经根型颈椎病,PTED组15例,ACDF组30例。比较2组手术时间、术中出血量,术后3个月及末次随访时VAS评分、JOA评分、NDI指数、颈椎活动度,以及末次随访时SF-36评分。结果 PTED组14例、ACDF组27例获得9~26(15.6±5.1)个月随访。2组手术时间差异无统计学意义(P0.05);但PTED组术中出血量较ACDF组少,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。术后3个月,PTED组邻近下位节段活动度较ACDF组小,颈椎整体活动度明显大于ACDF组,差异有统计学意义(P0.05);但2组邻近上位节段活动度比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。末次随访时,PTED组邻近上、下位节段活动度均小于ACDF组,差异有统计学意义(P0.05);但2组颈椎整体活动度比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。术后3个月PTED组VAS评分、JOA评分、NDI指数均较ACDF组改善明显,差异有统计学意义(P0.05);但末次随访时2组比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论 PTED与ACDF治疗单节段神经根型颈椎病临床疗效满意,PTED能有效保留颈椎活动度,减少邻近节段退变,值得临床推广应用。     

颈椎前路椎间融合术与人工椎间盘置换术联合椎间融合术治疗连续双节段颈椎病的中长期疗效对比

目的 :比较前路颈椎椎间融合术(anterior cervical discectomy and fusion,ACDF)与颈前路人工椎间盘置换联合颈椎椎间融合(Hybrid手术)治疗连续双节段颈椎病的中长期疗效。方法:回顾性分析2007年1月~2012年3月在我科行ACDF及Hybrid手术治疗的连续双节段颈椎病患者,资料完整且随访时间60个月者共68例,其中ACDF 39例(ACDF组),Hybrid手术29例(Hybrid组),两组患者年龄、性别构成比、随访时间、手术节段等均无统计学差异。比较两组术前及末次随访时的JOA评分、颈椎功能障碍指数(NDI)、疼痛视觉模拟评分(VAS)、颈椎整体活动度、C2-C7颈椎曲度、相邻节段活动度、相邻节段退变情况等。结果:两组患者手术时间、出血量和术后引流量均无统计学差异;末次随访时的JOA、NDI及VAS评分均较同组术前有显著性改善(P0.05),两组间同时间点比较均无统计学差异(P0.05)。末次随访时根据Odom标准,Hybrid组的优良率为93.1%,ACDF组为92.3%,两组比较无统计学差异(P0.05);两组C2-C7曲度较术前均有所恢复,Hybrid组较ACDF组改善更好(P0.05);Hybrid组整体颈椎活动度及相邻节段活动度较术前无明显差异(P0.05),ACDF组颈椎活动度较术前明显降低(P0.05)、相邻节段活动度明显增加(P0.05);颈椎X线片评估相邻节段退变发生率无统计学差异(Hybrid组17.2%vs ACDF组20.5%,P0.05);末次随访时Hybrid组人工间盘置换节段异位骨化发生率为34.5%(10/29),其中Mobi-C假体发生率为41.2%(5/12),Pro Disc-C假体发生率为29.4%(5/17)。结论 :Hybrid手术治疗双节段颈椎病5年以上随访临床疗效及安全有效性与ACDF相当,但Hybrid手术可以更好地重建颈椎曲度,减少邻近节段代偿性活动的同时保持颈椎活动度。     

颈前路人工颈椎间盘置换术与Zero-p椎间植骨融合内固定治疗双节段脊髓型颈椎病的疗效比较

目的比较颈前路人工颈椎间盘置换术和Zero-p椎间植骨融合内固定治疗双节段脊髓型颈椎病的临床疗效。方法回顾性分析自2014-05—2019-05诊治的55例双节段脊髓型颈椎病,26例采用颈前路人工椎间盘置换术治疗(观察组),29例采用Zero-p椎间植骨融合内固定治疗(对照组)。比较2组手术时间、术中出血量、术后引流量、邻近节段退变数,比较2组末次随访时疼痛VAS评分、JOA评分、NDI指数、伤椎Cobb角、C_(2～7)活动度、C_(2～7)颈椎曲度、手术节段活动度、上位相邻节段活动度、下位相邻节段活动度。结果 2组均顺利完成手术并获得至少24个月的随访。2组手术时间、术中出血量、术后引流量比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。观察组术后出现邻近节段退变数较对照组少,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。末次随访时2组疼痛VAS评分、JOA评分、NDI指数、伤椎Cobb角比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05),观察组C_(2～7)活动度、C_(2～7)颈椎曲度、手术节段活动度、上位相邻节段活动度、下位相邻节段活动度较对照组大,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论颈前路人工颈椎间盘置换术和Zero-p椎间植骨融合内固定治疗双节段脊髓型颈椎病均能改善脊髓功能,增加颈椎活动度,颈前路人工颈椎间盘置换术在维持颈椎活动度、减少术后相邻节段退变等方面有一定优势。     

颈椎曲度和活动度参数的影响因素

 目的 探讨颈椎曲度和活动度的测量参数及影响因素。方法 回顾性分析2012年1月至2013年6月,212位正常志愿者的颈椎标准侧位、前屈位、后伸位X线片,男84位,女128位;年龄20~79岁,以10年为一组,分成6组;颈椎间盘退变程度依据颈椎9分法,分为4组。影像资料由3名脊柱外科医生分3次运用Mimics软件测量。测量参数包括C2~C7曲度及椎间各节段和整体活动度。对颈椎曲度和整体活动度的关系进行Pearson 相关性分析,对年龄、性别和间盘退变三个因素进行多重线性回归分析。组内相关系数（ICC）评估测量者组内和组间一致性。结果 C₂~C₇曲度为21.40°±12.15°,C₂~C₇整体活动度为 63.59°±15.37°。性别对颈椎曲度的影响有统计学意义（回归系数=-2.472,P＜ 0.05）。性别和年龄两因素对颈椎整体活动度的影响有统计学意义（回归系数=3.863和-6.463,P＜0.05）。性别对C_2,3、C_5,6两个节段活动度的影响有统计学意义;年龄对C₂~C₇所有五个节段活动度的影响有统计学意义;间盘退变对C_4,5、C_5,6和C_6,7三个节段活动度的影响有统计学意义。颈椎曲度与颈椎整体及后伸活动度无明显相关性（r=-0.106和0.215,P＞0.05）,但与前屈活动度呈负相关（r=-0.401,P＜0.05）。颈椎曲度、整体活动度和节段活动度的测量结果均具有很高的组内一致性（ICC=0.97,0.96~0.97;ICC=0.91,0.90~0.92;ICC=0.89,0.87~0.91）和组间一致性（ICC=0.94,0.92~0.95;ICC=0.89,0.86~0.91;ICC=0.83,0.79~0.86）。结论 性别是颈椎曲度的影响因素,性别和年龄两因素是颈椎整体活动度的影响因素,性别、年龄和间盘退变程度是颈椎节段活动度的影响因素。     

人工颈椎间盘置换术与颈椎前路减压融合术治疗脊髓型颈椎病的疗效比较

目的探讨人工颈椎间盘置换术(ADR)和颈椎前路减压融合术(ACDF)治疗脊髓型颈椎病的疗效及其对相邻节段退变的影响。方法手术治疗92例脊髓型颈椎病患者,根据手术方法分为ADR组(采用ADR治疗,47例)、ACDF组(采用ACDF治疗,45例)。术后对患者进行12个月的随访观察,对比两组患者术后邻近节段运动范围、JOA评分及颈椎相邻节段退变情况。结果两组患者均随访12个月。术后1、3、6、12个月,邻近节段的前屈后伸、左侧屈曲、右侧屈曲测定值ACDF组均大于ADR组(P 0. 05);两组JOA评分均较术前显著提高(P 0. 05)。术后6个月,两组颈椎邻近节段退变差异无统计学意义(P 0. 05);术后12个月,颈椎邻近节段退变程度ADR组低于ACDF组(P 0. 05)。结论 ADR和ACDF治疗脊髓型颈椎病均能显著改善脊髓功能,而ADR在维持颈椎活动度、减少术后相邻节段退变方面有一定优势。     

颈前路减压植骨融合与Bryan人工颈椎间盘置换疗效比较

目的探讨颈椎前路减压植骨融合术(anterior cervical decompression and fusion,ACDF)与Bryan人工颈椎椎间盘置换术(artificial cervical disc replacement,ACDR)两种手术方式用于治疗脊髓型颈椎病及神经根型颈椎病的近期和远期疗效。方法系统分析我院2010年11月至2012年11月70例(70个节段)脊髓型或神经根型颈椎病患者病例资料,将70例(70个节段)脊髓型或神经根型颈椎病患者,通过随机数字表法随机分为ACDF组(35例)及Bryan组(35例)。通过分析术前及术后随访12个月的Odom's标准评分、活动度(range of motion,ROM)、日本骨科协会(Japanese orthopaedic association,JOA)、健康调查简表(the MOS item short from health survey,SF-36)及颈椎残障功能指数(neck disability index,NDI)观察指标的差异,同时对随访12个月的上述各项指标进行两组间比较,比较两者疗效,分析两种术式的优点及他们产生的问题。结果两种手术方式都能取得明确疗效,治疗后患者症状明显缓解(P0.05),两种术式在创伤、出血量等方面差异性不显著(P0.05);JOA评分及SF-36评分两者差异性不显著(P0.05);而在12个月随访ROM评估及NDI比较有差异,Bryan组数据优于ACDF组,差异具有统计学意义(P0.05);Bryan组在Odom's评分中因减压不彻底及异位骨化,有2例等级为差,ACDF组则为0例。结论 Bryan人工颈椎椎间盘置换术在减少颈椎临近节段退变上优于ACDF,短中期疗效优于ACDF,但Bryan人工颈椎椎间盘置换术同时存在减压不彻底及异位骨化等并发症,远期疗效不如ACDF。     

Bryan人工颈椎间盘置换术与椎间融合术治疗颈椎病的中期疗效比较

目的 分析对比Bryan人工颈椎间盘置换术与颈前路减压植骨融合术(anterior ceryical discectomy and fusion,ACDF)治疗颈椎病的中期疗效.方法 2003年11月至2004年2月,16例患者行Bryan人工颈椎间盘置换术(A组),35例患者行ACDF(B组),于术前、出院前、术后6周、3、6、12、24个月及随后每半年一次随访,通过日本矫形外科协会(JOA)评分、简明健康状况调查表(SF-36评分)、颈椎残障功能指数(neck disability index,NDI)评定治疗效果.同期摄X线片,检测病变节段的稳定性和活动度.结果 两组患者术中、术后均无严重并发症发生.所有患者均获得6年以上随访,平均73.5个月.A组术后无假体移位、脱落等并发症发生,1例发生自发融合;置换节段活动度与置换前活动度的差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).B组术后6个月X线片示植骨全部达骨性融合.两组患者术后随访时临床症状均明显缓解,疗效满意.两组患者的JOA评分及SF-36评分、NDI,术后随访时均较术前有明显提高(P＜0.05).B组活动度较术前明显减小(P＜0.01),而A组手术前后差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05);两组术后活动度差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05).结论 Bryan人工颈椎间盘置换术疗效良好,同时还可保留颈椎病变节段活动度,减少轴性症状,为颈椎病治疗提供一种新的方法.

Abstract：

Objective To compare the clinical outcomes of Bryan disc replacement with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) in patients with cervical spondylopathy. Methods Sixteen patients underwent Bryan cervical disc replacement (A group), and 35 patients underwent traditional ACDF (B group) were included in the study. Patients were followed up at regular intervals. The JOA score, SF-36, neck disability index (NDI) score and the dynamic flexion-extension radiographs were used to evaluated the oucomes.Results All the patients were followed up for more than 6 years (mean, 73.5 months). There were no severe adverse events in both groups. In A group, there were no differences between postoperative and preoperative mobility of surgical segments (P＞0.05). All patients obtained bone fusions 6 month after surgery in group B.In both groups, the clinical symptoms relieved obviously after surgery. The postoperative scores of the JOA,SF-36 and NDI significantly improved compared with those of preoperative ones (P＜0.05). In B group, range of motion (ROM) was significantly decreased postoperatively (P ＜0.01); in A group, there were no significant differences between postoperative and preoperative ROM (P＞0.05). The difference between two groups regarding ROM was noted (P＜0.05). Conclusion The mid-term outcomes of Bryan cervical arthroplasty are satisfied. And the cervical arthroplasty which can maintain the mobility of the segment, and decrease the incidence of the postoperative neck axial symptoms is a viable alternative to cervical spondylopathy.     

Bryan人工颈椎间盘置换治疗单节段颈椎病的前瞻性临床研究

目的 对Bryan人工颈椎间盘置换和前路单间隙减压融合术治疗颈椎病的临床结果 进行前瞻性对照研究.方法2003年12月至2005年5月连续治疗的59例单间隙脊髓型或神经根型颈椎病患者,随机分为Bryan人工颈椎间盘置换组(Bryan组)和前路减压融合固定组(ACDF组),比较两组手术时间、手术出血量、住院时间等临床数据,同时分别于术后6周和3、6、12、24个月应用颈痛、上肢疼痛视觉模拟评分法(VAS)、颈部功能异常评分指标(NDI)、影像学测量手术节段及整个下颈椎的过伸过曲位角度变化等方法进行疗效评估.结果 两组手术时间、手术出血量、住院时间的差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05);术后6周和3个月,两组颈痛VAS、NDI的差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05),其余随访时点两组之间的差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05),但与术前相比差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05).影像学测量:Bryan组置换节段正常活动范围存在,ACDF组置换节段无角度变化;整个下颈椎的屈伸范围,Bryan组在各个随访时段与术前相比无变化(P＞0.05),而ACDF组在术后6周和3个月与术前相比差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05),6个月时逐渐恢复正常.结论 中期随访结果显示,Bryan人工颈椎间盘置换保持了病变节段正常的屈伸活动范围,可以取得与前路减压融合固定相同的临床效果,而且手术后短期内治疗效果优于传统前路减压融合方式.     

Clinical and radiological analysis of Bryan cervical disc arthroplasty: eight-year follow-up results compared with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion

Purpose

Bryan cervical disc arthroplasty has been reported with satisfactory short- and medium-term clinical results. However, the long-term clinical and radiographic outcomes are seldom reported. The purpose of this study was to compare the eight-year follow-up results in patients who underwent Bryan disc arthroplasty with patients received ACDF, and assess the incidence of heterotopic ossification (HO) and its effect on clinical outcome and mobility of the device.

Methods

Thirty-one patients underwent Bryan disc arthroplasty, and 35 patients underwent ACDF were included in the study. The Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) scores, neck disability index (NDI), visual analogue scale (VAS) of neck and arm pain, and the radiographs were used to evaluate the outcomes. The heterotopic ossification (HO) was determined by CT scan and was classified into three subgroups to compare the related effect. Adjacent segment degeneration (ASD) was also observed.

Results

At final follow-up, there were no significant differences in JOA scores between two groups, but the improvement in NDI and neck or arm VAS were significantly greater in the Bryan disc cohort. The range of motion at the index level was 7.0° in Bryan group, while 100 % bone fusion were achieved in ACDF group. HO was observed in 18 (51.4 %) levels. There were more restricted movement of the prosthesis and slight higher rate of axial pain in patients with severe-HO (grade III and IV). Fourteen (28.6 %) levels developed ASD in Bryan group, which was significantly lower than that (58.6 %) in ACDF group.

Conclusions

At eight year follow-up, the clinical and radiographic outcomes of Bryan cervical disc arthroplasty compared favorably to those of ACDF. It avoided accelerated adjacent segment degeneration by preserving motion. However, severe HO restricted the ROM of the index levels and maybe associated with post-operative axial pain.

     

A prospective,randomised, controlled multicentre study comparing cervical disc replacement with anterior cervical decompression and fusion

Purpose

Total cervical artificial disc replacement (TDR) simulates normal disc structure, thus avoiding the drawbacks of anterior cervical decompression and fusion (ACDF). This prospective, randomized, controlled and multicentre study aimed to evaluate clinical and radiographic outcomes by comparing cervical disc replacement using Mobi-C disc prostheses with ACDF.

Methods

This prospective, randomized, controlled and multicentre study consisted of 111 patients undergoing single-level Mobi-C disc prosthesis replacement (TDR group, n?=?55) or ACDF (n?=?56) from February 2008 to November 2009 at 11 medical centres across China. Patients were assessed before surgery, at seven days postoperation and one, three, six, 12, 24, 36 and 48 months postoperation. Clinical and neurological outcome was determined by measuring the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores, visual analogue scale (VAS) and Neck Disability Index (NDI). Static and dynamic radiographs were obtained of the cervical curvature, the functional spinal unit (FSU) angle and range of motion (ROM) of the cervical spine, FSU angle and treated and adjacent segments.

Results

A total of 111 patients were included and randomly assigned to either Mobi-C disc prosthesis replacement or ACDF. JOA, VAS and NDI showed statistically significant improvements 48 months after surgery (P?p?>?0.05). ROM in the ACDF group was significantly reduced at one month and remained so throughout the follow-up. By 48-months, more ACDF patients required secondary surgery (four of 56 patients).

Conclusions

Although ACDF may increase the risk of additional surgery, clinical outcomes indicated that both Mobi-C artificial cervical disc replacement and ACDF were reliable. Radiographic data showed that ROM of the cervical spine, FSU angle and treated and adjacent segments were relatively better reconstructed and maintained in the Mobi-C group compared with those in the ACDF group.     

Cervical kinematics and radiological changes after Discover artificial disc replacement versus fusion

Background contextThe cervical disc arthroplasty has emerged as a promising alternative to the anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) in patients with radiculopathy or myelopathy with disc degeneration disease. The advantages of this technique have been reported to preserve the cervical mobility and possibly reduce the adjacent segment degeneration. However, no studies have compared the clinical outcomes and radiological results in patients treated with Discover artificial disc replacement to those observed in matched group of patients that have undergone ACDF.PurposeWe conducted this clinical study to compare the cervical kinematics and radiographic adjacent-level changes after Discover artificial disc replacement with ACDF.Study designAnalysis and evaluation of data acquired in a comparative clinical study.Patient sampleThe number of patients in the Discover and ACDF group were 149 and 196, respectively.Outcome measuresThe Neck Disability Index (NDI) and visual analog scale (VAS) pain score were evaluated. The range of movement (ROM) by the shell angle, the functional segment unit and global angles were measured, and the postoperative radiological changes at adjacents levels were observed.MethodsA total of 149 patients with symptomatic single or two-level cervical degenerative diseases received the Discover cervical artificial disc replacement from November 2008 to February 2010. During the same period, there were a total of 196 patients undergoing one or two-level ACDF. The average follow-up periods of the Discover disc group and ACDF group were 22.1 months and 22.5 months, respectively. Before surgery, patients were evaluated using static and dynamic cervical spine radiographs in addition to computerized tomography and magnetic resonance imaging. Static and dynamic cervical spine radiographs were obtained after surgery and then at 3- and 6-month follow-up. Then, the subsequent follow-up examinations were performed at every 6-month interval. The clinical results in terms of NDI and VAS scores, the parameters of cervical kinematics, postoperative radiological changes at adjacent levels, and complications in the two groups were statistically analyzed and compared. No funding was received for this study, and the authors report no potential conflict of interest–associated biases in the text.ResultsAlthough the clinical improvements in terms of NDI and VAS scores were achieved in both the Discover and ACDF group, no significant difference was found between the two groups for both single- (VAS p=.13, NDI p=.49) and double-level surgeries (VAS p=.28, NDI p=.21). Significant differences of cervcial kinematics occurred between the Discover and the ACDF group for both the single- and double-level surgeries at the operative segments (p<.001). Except the upper adjacent levels for the single-level Discover and ACDF groups (p=.33), significant increases in adjacent segment motion were observed in the ACDF group compared with the minimal ROM changes in adjacent segment motion noted in the Discover group, and the differences between the two groups for both single and double-level procedures were statistically significant (p<.05). There were significant differences in the postoperative radiological changes at adjacent levels between the Discover and ACDF groups for the single-level surgery (p<.001, χ²=18.18) and the double-level surgery (p=.007, χ²=7.2). No significant difference of complications was found between the Discover and ACDF groups in both single (p=.25, χ²=1.32) and double-level cases (p=.4, χ²=0.69).ConclusionsThe adjacent segment ROM and the incidence of radiographic adjacent-level changes in patients undergoing ACDF were higher than those undergoing Discover artificial disc replacement. The cervical mobility was relatively well maintained in the Discover group compared with the ACDF group, and the Discover cervical disc arthroplasty can be an effective alternative to the fusion technique.     

Bryan人工间盘置换与前路减压融合治疗颈椎退行性疾病的中期随访研究

 目的 评价人工椎间盘置换术治疗颈椎退行性疾病的中期疗效,并探讨其是否可以减少邻近节段退变的发生。方法 前瞻性对比分析接受颈椎人工间盘置换术(置换组,45例)与颈椎前路减压融合术(融合组,48例)治疗的颈椎退行性疾病患者的随访6年临床疗效和影像学资料。临床疗效评价指标为日本骨科协会评分(Japanese Orthopaedic Association Scores,JOA)、颈椎功能残障指数量表(neck disability index,NDI)和Odom评分。影像学评价指标为矢状位曲度、活动度、邻近节段退变。结果28例置换组患者和35例融合组患者完成随访。两组患者末次随访的JOA评分和NDI均较术前有明显改善,组间比较差异无统计学意义。92.9%的置换组患者和97.1%的融合组患者Odom评分获得很好或较好的结果。两组患者颈椎矢状位曲度末次随访较术前均得到保持。颈椎整体活动度置换组末次随访与术前无明显差异,而融合组则是明显降低。置换组置换节段活动度术前为9.5°±3.7°,术后3个月为7.0°±3.0°,末次随访为6.6°±4.1°,末次随访较术后3个月无明显改变。邻近节段退变评估采用侧位X线片和MRI T2加权像,置换组上、下邻近节段退变均明显少于融合组。结论 Bryan人工椎间盘置换术6年的随访结果基本满意,能更好地保留颈椎生理活动及生物力学环境,从而降低邻近节段退变的发生率。     

Bryan颈椎间盘置换术与颈前路减压椎间融合术术后疗效的系统评价

目的:收集并分析SCI收录的关于Bryan颈椎间盘置换术与颈前路减压椎间融合术(anterior cervicaldiseectomy and fusion,ACDF)术后疗效比较的文献,对Bryan颈椎间盘置换术和ACDF术后疗效进行系统评价.方法:检索Pubmed、Medline、Embase、Ovid、Cochrane Library等数据库.入选文献均为临床研究;各研究的干预组(治疗组)术式为Bryan颈椎间盘置换术,对照组术式为ACDF;治疗组和对照组例数均不小于10;术后疗效评价包括颈部功能残障指数(neck disability index,NDI),相应节段运动范围(range of motion,ROM)等常见指标.结果:共4篇文献符合纳入标准.纳入人数共588人,干预组303例,对照组285例;术后2年内NDI合并权重均差(weiishted meBJl difference,WMD)为-0.39(95%CI,-1.56-0.78),P>0.05.术后2年内相应颈椎节段运动范围(ROM)合并WMD值为8.95(95%CI,7.01～10.89),P<0.05.结论:Bryan间盘置换术在术后2年内保留颈椎节段活动方面优于ACDF,尚没有足够证据表明Bryan间盘置换术术后2年内NDI优于ACDF.     

Clinical and radiological results following cervical arthroplasty

Summary Background. This was a retrospective study of clinical and radiological results of cervical arthroplasty using the Bryan cervical disc prosthesis to evaluate the efficacy of arthroplasty in clinical applications. Methods. A total of 46 patients underwent arthroplasty of a single level using the Bryan disc prosthesis. Clinical outcome was assessed using the visual analogue scale (VAS) and the neck disability index (NDI). All patients were evaluated using preoperative and postoperative static cervical spine radiographs to compare cervical sagittal balance. Dynamic cervical spine radiographs were used to compare movement at the level of the procedure, movement at the adjacent level and movement of the whole cervical spine. Findings. With the exception of four patients with aggravated neck pain, the NDI and VAS scores decreased significantly in late follow-up evaluations. The range of movement of the whole cervical spine, the functional segmental unit, and the adjacent segments were preserved after arthroplasty. The sagittal alignment of the cervical spine showed kyphosis after surgery but restored lordosis at a later time. The postulated cause of kyphotic changes include “over-milling” at the dorsal endplate, inappropriate angle of disc insertion, structural absence of lordosis in the Bryan disc, removal of posterior longitudinal ligament, and pre-existing kyphosis. Conclusions. Arthroplasty using the Bryan disc appears to be safe and provided a favorable preliminary clinical and radiological outcome. Postoperative kyphosis can be prevented by understanding the biomechanical properties of the Bryan disc. Future studies will need to address the association between postoperative kyphosis, clinical outcome and adjacent segment disease.     

Comparison of cervical kinematics between patients with cervical artificial disc replacement and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for cervical disc herniation

Background contextAlthough anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is an effective treatment option for patients with cervical disc herniation, it limits cervical range of motion, which sometimes causes discomfort and leads to biomechanical stress at neighboring segments. In contrast, cervical artificial disc replacement (ADR) is supposed to preserve normal cervical range of motion than ACDF. A biomechanical measurement is necessary to identify the advantages and clinical implications of ADR. However, literature is scarce about this topic and in those available studies, authors used the static radiological method, which cannot identify three-dimensional motion and coupled movement during motion of one axis.PurposeThe purpose of this study was to compare the clinical parameters and cervical motion by three-dimensional motion analysis between ACDF and ADR and to investigate the ability of ADR to maintain cervical kinematics.Study designThis was a prospective case control study.Patient samplePatients who underwent ADR or ACDF for the treatment of single-level cervical disc herniation.Outcome measuresVisual analog scale (VAS), Korean version of Neck Disability Index (NDI, %), and three-dimensional motion analysis were used.MethodsThe patients were evaluated by VAS and the Korean version of the NDI (%) to assess pain degree and functional status. Cervical motions were assessed by three-dimensional motion analysis in terms of sagittal, coronal, and horizontal planes. Markers of 2.5 cm in diameter were attached at frontal polar (Fpz), center (Cz), and occipital (Oz) of 10–20 system of electroencephalography, C7 spinous process, and both acromions. These evaluations were performed preoperatively and 1 month and 6 months after surgery.ResultsThe ACDF and ADR groups revealed no significant difference in VAS, NDI (%), and cervical range of motion preoperatively. After surgery, both groups showed no significant difference in VAS and NDI (%). In motion analysis, significantly more range of motion was retained in flexion and extension in the ADR group than the ACDF group at 1 month and 6 months. There was no significant difference in lateral tilt and rotation angle. In terms of coupled motion, ADR group exhibited significantly more preserved sagittal plane motion during right and left rotation and also showed significantly more preserved right lateral bending angle during right rotation than ACDF group at 1 month and 6 months. There was no significant difference in other coupled motions.ConclusionThree-dimensional motion analysis could provide useful information in an objective and quantitative way about cervical motion after surgery. In addition, it allowed us to measure not only main motion but also coupled motion in three planes. ADR demonstrated better retained cervical motion mainly in sagittal plane (flexion and extension) and better preserved coupled sagittal and coronal motion during transverse plane motion than ACDF. ADR had the advantage in that it had the ability to preserve more cervical motions after surgery than ACDF.