One-Year Outcome Comparison of
Polyetheretherketone Cage and Disc Prosthesis
in Cervical Disc Replacement Surgery

Soylemez, Burcak; İRMAK, AYSEGUL

doi:10.14744/etd.2021.96493

One-Year Outcome Comparison of Polyetheretherketone Cage and Disc Prosthesis in Cervical Disc Replacement Surgery

Ayşegül IRMAK, (Sivas Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi, Tıp Fakültesi, Beyin Cerrahisi Anabilim Dalı, Sivas, Türkiye)

Burçak SÖYLEMEZ (Sivas Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi, Tıp Fakültesi, Beyin Cerrahisi Anabilim Dalı, Sivas, Türkiye)

Erciyes Medical Journal

0 0

Yıl: 2022 Cilt: 44 Sayı: 1 Sayfa Aralığı: 44 - 50 Metin Dili: İngilizce DOI: 10.14744/etd.2021.96493 İndeks Tarihi: 20-06-2022

One-Year Outcome Comparison of Polyetheretherketone Cage and Disc Prosthesis in Cervical Disc Replacement Surgery

Öz:

Objective: Anterior cervical microdiscectomy (ACD) is an established surgical method to treat cervical disc disease. Since ACD changes the natural distribution of biomechanical forces, grafts are often used. The most commonly used grafts are a polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cage or a cervical disc prothesis (CDP). This study is a comparison of the early period results of single-level ACD performed using a PEEK cage or a CDP. Materials and Methods: A total of 80 patients with a single-level cervical disc herniation who underwent ACD with PEEK cage (n=40) or CDP (n=40) implantation between 2015–2018 at a single center were retrospectively evaluated. The Cobb angle, T1-slope angle, segmental fusion angle, cervical-tilt angle, and disc height at the operated level were measured using cervical lateral radiographs and magnetic resonance images obtained preoperatively and at 1 day, 1 month, and 12 months postoperative. Neck pain was also evaluated pre- and postoperatively. Results: No statistically significant difference was seen between the groups in the parameters measured at the first and 12th months (p=0.481). In both groups, the preoperative and 12th-month measurements were found to be statistically significant (p=0.001). The development of adjacent segment disease (ASD) was not statistically different between groups. Conclusion: Although a CDP has some advantages in short-term outcomes, there is still insufficient evidence regarding long-term outcomes, particularly regarding the prevention of ASD. CDP implantation offers an earlier return to work and no requirement for an external cervical orthosis, but due to the high cost and some specific complications, such as implant dislocation, heterotopic ossification, and fusion, CPD is still far from a gold-standard treatment option, even for selected cases.

Anahtar Kelime:

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık

1. Chen Y, Lü G, Wang B, Li L, Kuang L. A comparison of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) using self-locking stand-alone polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cage with ACDF using cage and plate in the treatment of three-level cervical degenerative spondylopathy: A retrospective study with 2-year follow- up. Eur Spine J 2016; 25(7): 2255–62.
2. Mazas S, Benzakour A, Castelain JE, Damade C, Ghailane S, Gille O. Cervical disc herniation: which surgery? Int Orthop 2019, 43(4): 761–6.
3. Kersten RF, van Gaalen SM, de Gast A, Öner FC: Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages in cervical applications: A systematic review. Spine J 2015; 15(6): 1446–60.
4. Hu Y, Lv G, Ren S, Johansen D: Mid- to long-term outcomes of cervical disc arthroplasty versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for treatment of symptomatic cervical disc disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis of eight prospective randomized controlled trials. PLoS One 2016; 11(2): e0149312.
5. Caplan I, Sinha S, Schuster J, Piazza M, Glauser G, Osiemo B, et al. The utility of cervical spine bracing as a postoperative adjunct to single-level anterior cervical spine surgery. Asian J Neurosurg 2019; 14(2): 461–6.
6. Zhang Y, Liu H, Yang H, Pi B. Relationship between sagittal balance and axial symptoms in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy treated with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. J Invest Surg 2020; 33(5): 404–11.
7. Bohlman HH, Emery SE, Goodfellow DB, Jones PK. 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(9): 1298–307.
8. Savolainen S, Rinne J, Hernesniemi J. A prospective randomized study of anterior single-level cervicaldisc operations with long-term follow-up: surgical fusion is unnecessary. Neurosurgery 1998; 43(1): 51–5.
9. Lunsford LD, Bissonette DJ, Jannetta PJ, Sheptak PE, Zorub DS. Anterior surgery for cervical disc disease. Part 1: Treatment of lateral cervical disc herniation in 253 cases. J Neurosurg 1980; 53(1): 1–11.
10. Abd-Alrahman N, Dokmak AS, Abou-Madawi A. Anterior cervical discectomy (ACD) versus anterior cervical fusion (ACF), clinical and radiological outcome study. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 1999; 141(10): 1089–92.
11. Anakwenze OA, Auerbach JD, Milby AH, Lonner BS, Balderston RA. Sagittal cervical alignment after cervical disc arthroplasty and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: results of a prospective, randomized, controlled trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2009; 34(19): 2001–7.
12. Murrey D, Janssen M, Delamarter R, Goldstein J, Zigler J, Tay B, Darden B. Results of the prospective, randomized, controlled multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study of the ProDisc-C total disc replacement versus anterior discectomy and fusion for the treatment of 1-level symptomatic cervical disc disease. Spine J 2009; 9(4): 275–86.
13. Johnson JP, Lauryssen C, Cambron HO, Pashman R, Regan JJ, Anand N, et al. Sagittal alignment and the Bryan cervical artificial disc. Neurosurg Focus 2004; 17(16): E14.
14. Pickett GE, Rouleau J, Duggal N. Kinematic analysis of the cervical spine following implantation of an artificial cervical disc. Spine 2005; 30(17): 1949–54.
15. Duggal N, Bertagnoli R, Rabin D, Wharton N, Kowalczyk I. ProDisc-C: an in vivo kinematic study. J Spinal Disord Tech 2011; 24(5): 334–9.
16. 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): 519–28.
17. Goffin J, van Loon J, Van Calenbergh F, Plets C. Long-term results after anterior cervical fusion and osteosynthetic stabilization for fractures and/or dislocations of the cervical spine. J Spinal Disord 1995; 8(6): 500–8; discussion 499.
18. Coric D, Guyer RD, Nunley PD, Musante D, Carmody C, Gordon C, et al. Prospective, randomized multicenter study of cervical arthroplasty versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: 5-year results with a metal-on-metal artificial disc. J Neurosurg Spine 2018; 28: 252–61.
19. Karabag H, Cakmak E, Celik B, Iplikcioglu AC, Soran AF. Arthroplasty versus fusion for single-level cervical disc disease. J Pak Med Assoc 2014; 64(12): 1348–51.
20. Sundseth J, Fredriksli OA, Kolstad F, Johnsen LG, Pripp AH, Andresen H, et al; NORCAT study group. The Norwegian Cervical Arthroplasty Trial (NORCAT): 2-year clinical outcome after single-level cervical arthroplasty versus fusion-a prospective, single-blinded, randomized, controlled multicenter study. Eur Spine J 2017; 26(4): 1225–35.
21. Gao Y, Liu M, Li T, Huang F, Tang T, Xiang Z. A meta-analysis comparing the results of cervical disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for the treatment of symptomatic cervical disc disease. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2013; 95(6): 555–61.
22. Kearns S, Janssen M, Murrey D, Delamarter R. Five-year results of the Pro disc-C multicenter randomized clinical trial. Spine J 2011; 11: S46.
23. Brenke C, Scharf J, Schmieder K, Barth M. High prevalence of heterotopic ossification after cervical disc arthroplasty: Outcome and intraoperative findings following explantation of 22 cervical disc prostheses. J Neurosurg Spine 2012; 17: 141–6.
24. Kong L, Ma Q, Meng F, Cao J, Yu K, Shen Y. The prevalence of heterotopic ossification among patients after cervical artificial disc replacement: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore) 2017; 96(24): e7163.
25. Zhao Y, Zhang Y, Sun Y, Pan S, Zhou F, Liu Z. Application of cervical arthroplasty with Bryan cervical disc: 10-year follow up results in China. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2016; 41(2): 111–5.
26. Mehren C, Mayer HM. Artificial cervical disc replacement-an update. NeurolIndia 2005; 53(4): 440–4.
27. Murtagh R, Castellvi AE. Motion preservation surgery in the spine. Neuroimaging Clin N Am 2014; 24(2): 287–94.
28. Heller JG, Sasso RC, Papadopoulos SM, Anderson PA, Fessler RG, Hacker RJ, et al. Comparison of BRYAN cervical disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical decompression and fusion: Clinical and radiographic results of a randomized, controlled, clinical trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2009; 34(2): 101–7.
29. Röllinghoff M, Zarghooni K, Hackenberg L, Zeh A, Radetzki F, Delank KS. Quality of life and radiological outcome after cervical cage fusion and cervical disc arthroplasty [published correction appears in Acta Orthop Belg 2012; 78(4): 567. Erratum in: Acta Orthop Belg 2012; 78(3): 369–75.
30. Burkus JK, Traynelis VC, Haid RW Jr, Mummaneni PV. Clinical and radiographic analysis of an artificial cervical disc: 7-year follow-up from the Prestige prospective randomized controlled clinical trial: Clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 2014; 21(4): 516–28.
31. Bartels RH, Donk R, Verbeek AL. No justification for cervical disk prostheses in clinical practice: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Neurosurgery 2010; 66(6): 1153–60.

APA	İRMAK A, Soylemez B (2022). One-Year Outcome Comparison of Polyetheretherketone Cage and Disc Prosthesis in Cervical Disc Replacement Surgery. , 44 - 50. 10.14744/etd.2021.96493
Chicago	İRMAK AYSEGUL,Soylemez Burcak One-Year Outcome Comparison of Polyetheretherketone Cage and Disc Prosthesis in Cervical Disc Replacement Surgery. (2022): 44 - 50. 10.14744/etd.2021.96493
MLA	İRMAK AYSEGUL,Soylemez Burcak One-Year Outcome Comparison of Polyetheretherketone Cage and Disc Prosthesis in Cervical Disc Replacement Surgery. , 2022, ss.44 - 50. 10.14744/etd.2021.96493
AMA	İRMAK A,Soylemez B One-Year Outcome Comparison of Polyetheretherketone Cage and Disc Prosthesis in Cervical Disc Replacement Surgery. . 2022; 44 - 50. 10.14744/etd.2021.96493
Vancouver	İRMAK A,Soylemez B One-Year Outcome Comparison of Polyetheretherketone Cage and Disc Prosthesis in Cervical Disc Replacement Surgery. . 2022; 44 - 50. 10.14744/etd.2021.96493
IEEE	İRMAK A,Soylemez B "One-Year Outcome Comparison of Polyetheretherketone Cage and Disc Prosthesis in Cervical Disc Replacement Surgery." , ss.44 - 50, 2022. 10.14744/etd.2021.96493
ISNAD	İRMAK, AYSEGUL - Soylemez, Burcak. "One-Year Outcome Comparison of Polyetheretherketone Cage and Disc Prosthesis in Cervical Disc Replacement Surgery". (2022), 44-50. https://doi.org/10.14744/etd.2021.96493

APA	İRMAK A, Soylemez B (2022). One-Year Outcome Comparison of Polyetheretherketone Cage and Disc Prosthesis in Cervical Disc Replacement Surgery. Erciyes Medical Journal, 44(1), 44 - 50. 10.14744/etd.2021.96493
Chicago	İRMAK AYSEGUL,Soylemez Burcak One-Year Outcome Comparison of Polyetheretherketone Cage and Disc Prosthesis in Cervical Disc Replacement Surgery. Erciyes Medical Journal 44, no.1 (2022): 44 - 50. 10.14744/etd.2021.96493
MLA	İRMAK AYSEGUL,Soylemez Burcak One-Year Outcome Comparison of Polyetheretherketone Cage and Disc Prosthesis in Cervical Disc Replacement Surgery. Erciyes Medical Journal, vol.44, no.1, 2022, ss.44 - 50. 10.14744/etd.2021.96493
AMA	İRMAK A,Soylemez B One-Year Outcome Comparison of Polyetheretherketone Cage and Disc Prosthesis in Cervical Disc Replacement Surgery. Erciyes Medical Journal. 2022; 44(1): 44 - 50. 10.14744/etd.2021.96493
Vancouver	İRMAK A,Soylemez B One-Year Outcome Comparison of Polyetheretherketone Cage and Disc Prosthesis in Cervical Disc Replacement Surgery. Erciyes Medical Journal. 2022; 44(1): 44 - 50. 10.14744/etd.2021.96493
IEEE	İRMAK A,Soylemez B "One-Year Outcome Comparison of Polyetheretherketone Cage and Disc Prosthesis in Cervical Disc Replacement Surgery." Erciyes Medical Journal, 44, ss.44 - 50, 2022. 10.14744/etd.2021.96493
ISNAD	İRMAK, AYSEGUL - Soylemez, Burcak. "One-Year Outcome Comparison of Polyetheretherketone Cage and Disc Prosthesis in Cervical Disc Replacement Surgery". Erciyes Medical Journal 44/1 (2022), 44-50. https://doi.org/10.14744/etd.2021.96493