Early effectiveness of cervical disc replacement by using Pretic-I_Chinese Journal of Reparative and Reconstructive Surgery

Authors：

 LIU Hao ¹ , DENG Yuxiao ¹ , LIU Ziyang ¹ , WANG Beiyu ¹ , DING Chen ¹ , HONG Ying ² , CHEN Hua ¹ , MA Litai ¹

1. Department of Orthopaedics, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu Sichuan, 610041, P.R.China;
2. Operating Room, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu Sichuan, 610041, P.R.China;

Corresponding author：

LIU Hao, Email: liuhao6304@163.com

Keywords：

Pretic-I artificial disc; cervical disc replacement; cervical disc herniation

DOI：

10.7507/1002-1892.201612146

Video：

Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Objective To observe the early effectiveness of cervical disc replacement with Pretic-I, a new type artificial disc. Methods A retrospective analysis was made on the clinical data of 10 patients who underwent single segmental cervical disc replacement with Pretic-I from June to December 2014. Among 10 patients, 4 were male and 6 were female, with an average age of 40 years (range, 27-51 years). The mean disease duration was 15.4 months (range, 4-36 months). Affected segments located at C_{4, 5} level in 1 case, at C_{5, 6} level in 8 cases, and at C_{6, 7} level in 1 case. The visual analogue scale (VAS), Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score, and neck disability index (NDI) were used to evaluate the clinical outcomes. Besides, the disc height and the range of motion (ROM) at operated level, and ROM of upper and lower adjacent level were measured to assess the function. Results The operation was successfully completed in all patients who were followed up for 12 months. No complications of aggravated nerve symptoms, vertebral artery injury, esophagotracheal fistula, cerebrospinal fluid leakage, incision infection, hematoma and prosthetic loosening were observed during follow-up. The VAS score, JOA score, and NDI significantly improved at each time point after operation when compared with preoperative scores (P<0.05). The height of intervertebral disc at operated level was significantly increased at immediate and 3 months after operation when compared with preoperative one (P<0.05), but no significant difference was found between at 6 months or 12 months after operation and at pre-operation (P>0.05). No significant difference was shown in the ROM at operated level, and ROM of upper and lower adjacent level between at pre-operation and at each time point after operation (P>0.05). Conclusion The early effctiveness of cervical disc replacement using Pretic-I is satisfactory. The symptoms can be relieved significantly and the dynamic features of the operated level, as well as the upper and lower adjacent levels, are well preserved.

Citation： LIU Hao, DENG Yuxiao, LIU Ziyang, WANG Beiyu, DING Chen, HONG Ying, CHEN Hua, MA Litai. Early effectiveness of cervical disc replacement by using Pretic-I. Chinese Journal of Reparative and Reconstructive Surgery, 2017, 31(5): 513-518. doi: 10.7507/1002-1892.201612146 Copy

1.	丁琛, 刘浩, 龚全, 等. 人工颈椎间盘置换与颈前路融合术治疗脊髓型颈椎病 3 年随访结果报道. 中国矫形外科杂志, 2014, 22(3): 208-214.
2.	曹俊明, 申勇, 杨大龙, 等. Bryan 人工颈椎间盘置换与颈前路椎间融合术后轴性症状的对比分析. 中国修复重建外科杂志, 2008, 22(10): 1200-1204.
3.	田永福, 刘雅莉, 杨克虎, 等. 颈椎间盘置换与颈前路减压植骨融合术治疗单节段颈椎病疗效的系统评价. 中国组织工程研究与临床康复, 2009, 13(35): 6831-6835.
4.	Sasso RC, Best NM, Metcalf NH, et al. Motion analysis of bryan cervical disc arthroplasty versus anterior discectomy and fusion: results from a prospective, randomized, multicenter, clinical trial. J Spinal Disord Tech, 2008, 21(6): 393-399.
5.	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(9): 721-730.
6.	McAfee PC. The advantages of cervical disc replacement for the treatment of degenerative disc disease. Curr Opin Orthop, 2006, 17(3): 233-239.
7.	蒋涛, 任先军, 王卫东, 等. 人工颈椎间盘置换对邻近节段椎间盘的保护作用. 中国矫形外科杂志, 2010, 18(7): 529-533.
8.	Bhatnagar R, Bergin P, Yu W, et al. Cervical disc arthroplasty. Curr Orthop Pract, 2010, 21(3): 306-309.
9.	Kelly MP, Mok JM, Frisch RF, et al. Adjacent segment motion after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion versus Prodisc-c cervical total disk arthroplasty: analysis from a randomized, controlled trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 2011, 36(15): 1171-1179.
10.	Thaler M, Hartmann S, Gstöttner M, et al. Footprint mismatch in total cervical disc arthroplasty. Eur Spine J, 2013, 22(4): 759-765.
11.	Dong L, Tan MS, Yan QH, et al. Footprint mismatch of cervical disc prostheses with Chinese cervical anatomic dimensions. Chin Med J (Engl), 2015, 128(2): 197-202.
12.	罗成, 瞿霞, 陈波, 等. 颈椎间盘置换和椎间盘切除植骨融合修复单节段颈椎病: 随机对照中期随访. 中国组织工程研究, 2015, 19(9): 1358-1364.
13.	刘文华, 朱兵, 刘晓伟, 等. 单节段 Bryan 人工颈椎间盘置换术后异位骨化的发生率和疗效观察. 中国修复重建外科杂志, 2012, 26(6): 699-702.
14.	邓宇骁, 洪瑛, 刘浩, 等. 椎间盘置换中体位对假体置入后活动度的影响. 中国组织工程研究, 2012, 16(39): 7221-7226.
15.	娄纪刚, 刘浩, 龚全, 等. 单节段 Prestige LP 人工颈椎间盘置换术后置换节段活动度的影响因素分析. 颈腰痛杂志, 2015, 36(1): 20-24.
16.	丁琛, 刘浩, 胡韬, 等. Bryan 人工颈椎间盘置换治疗颈椎病的中期临床随访. 中国组织工程研究与临床康复, 2011, 15(17): 3047-3052.
17.	Sasso RC, Best NM. Cervical kinematics after fusion and bryan disc arthroplasty. J Spinal Disord Tech, 2008, 21(1): 19-22.
18.	Park JJ, Quirno M, Cunningham MR, et al. Analysis of segmental cervical spine vertebral motion after prodisc-C cervical disc replacement. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 2010, 35(8): E285-289.
19.	Snyder JT, Tzermiadianos MN, Ghanayem AJ, et al. Effect of uncovertebral joint excision on the motion response of the cervical spine after total disc replacement. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 2007, 32(26): 2965-2969.
20.	Sasso RC, Smucker JD, Hacker RJ, et al. Artificial disc versus fusion: a prospective, randomized study with 2-year follow-up on 99 patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 2007, 32(26): 2933-2940.
21.	Rabin D, Pickett GE, Bisnaire L, et al. The kinematics of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion versus artificial cervical disc: a pilot study. Neurosurgery, 2007, 61(3 Suppl): 100-105.
22.	Liu F, Cheng J, Komistek RD, et al.In vivo evaluation of dynamic characteristics of the normal, fused, and disc replacement cervical spines. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 2007, 32(23): 2578-2584.
23.	Galbusera F, Bellini CM, Brayda-Bruno M, et al. Biomechanical studies on cervical total disc arthroplasty: a literature review. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon), 2008, 23(9): 1095-1104.
24.	洪瑛, 邓宇骁, 刘浩, 等. 单节段颈椎间盘置换术中颈椎体位对术后颈椎中立位生理轴线重建的影响. 中国修复重建外科杂志, 2013, 27(1): 62-65.
25.	Hrabálek L, Vaverka M, Houdek M. Cervical disc arthroplasty (Prodisc-C): analysis of 3 to 4-year follow up results. Rozhl Chir, 2009, 88(11): 634-641.
26.	Miyazaki M, Hymanson HJ, Morishita Y, et al. Kinematic analysis of the relationship between sagittal alignment and disc degeneration in the cervical spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 2008, 33(23): E870-876.
27.	Johnson JP, Lauryssen C, Cambron HO, et al. Sagittal alignment and the Bryan cervical artificial disc. Neurosurg Focus, 2004, 17(6): E14.

1. 丁琛, 刘浩, 龚全, 等. 人工颈椎间盘置换与颈前路融合术治疗脊髓型颈椎病 3 年随访结果报道. 中国矫形外科杂志, 2014, 22(3): 208-214.
2. 曹俊明, 申勇, 杨大龙, 等. Bryan 人工颈椎间盘置换与颈前路椎间融合术后轴性症状的对比分析. 中国修复重建外科杂志, 2008, 22(10): 1200-1204.
3. 田永福, 刘雅莉, 杨克虎, 等. 颈椎间盘置换与颈前路减压植骨融合术治疗单节段颈椎病疗效的系统评价. 中国组织工程研究与临床康复, 2009, 13(35): 6831-6835.
4. Sasso RC, Best NM, Metcalf NH, et al. Motion analysis of bryan cervical disc arthroplasty versus anterior discectomy and fusion: results from a prospective, randomized, multicenter, clinical trial. J Spinal Disord Tech, 2008, 21(6): 393-399.
5. 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(9): 721-730.
6. McAfee PC. The advantages of cervical disc replacement for the treatment of degenerative disc disease. Curr Opin Orthop, 2006, 17(3): 233-239.
7. 蒋涛, 任先军, 王卫东, 等. 人工颈椎间盘置换对邻近节段椎间盘的保护作用. 中国矫形外科杂志, 2010, 18(7): 529-533.
8. Bhatnagar R, Bergin P, Yu W, et al. Cervical disc arthroplasty. Curr Orthop Pract, 2010, 21(3): 306-309.
9. Kelly MP, Mok JM, Frisch RF, et al. Adjacent segment motion after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion versus Prodisc-c cervical total disk arthroplasty: analysis from a randomized, controlled trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 2011, 36(15): 1171-1179.
10. Thaler M, Hartmann S, Gstöttner M, et al. Footprint mismatch in total cervical disc arthroplasty. Eur Spine J, 2013, 22(4): 759-765.
11. Dong L, Tan MS, Yan QH, et al. Footprint mismatch of cervical disc prostheses with Chinese cervical anatomic dimensions. Chin Med J (Engl), 2015, 128(2): 197-202.
12. 罗成, 瞿霞, 陈波, 等. 颈椎间盘置换和椎间盘切除植骨融合修复单节段颈椎病: 随机对照中期随访. 中国组织工程研究, 2015, 19(9): 1358-1364.
13. 刘文华, 朱兵, 刘晓伟, 等. 单节段 Bryan 人工颈椎间盘置换术后异位骨化的发生率和疗效观察. 中国修复重建外科杂志, 2012, 26(6): 699-702.
14. 邓宇骁, 洪瑛, 刘浩, 等. 椎间盘置换中体位对假体置入后活动度的影响. 中国组织工程研究, 2012, 16(39): 7221-7226.
15. 娄纪刚, 刘浩, 龚全, 等. 单节段 Prestige LP 人工颈椎间盘置换术后置换节段活动度的影响因素分析. 颈腰痛杂志, 2015, 36(1): 20-24.
16. 丁琛, 刘浩, 胡韬, 等. Bryan 人工颈椎间盘置换治疗颈椎病的中期临床随访. 中国组织工程研究与临床康复, 2011, 15(17): 3047-3052.
17. Sasso RC, Best NM. Cervical kinematics after fusion and bryan disc arthroplasty. J Spinal Disord Tech, 2008, 21(1): 19-22.
18. Park JJ, Quirno M, Cunningham MR, et al. Analysis of segmental cervical spine vertebral motion after prodisc-C cervical disc replacement. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 2010, 35(8): E285-289.
19. Snyder JT, Tzermiadianos MN, Ghanayem AJ, et al. Effect of uncovertebral joint excision on the motion response of the cervical spine after total disc replacement. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 2007, 32(26): 2965-2969.
20. Sasso RC, Smucker JD, Hacker RJ, et al. Artificial disc versus fusion: a prospective, randomized study with 2-year follow-up on 99 patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 2007, 32(26): 2933-2940.
21. Rabin D, Pickett GE, Bisnaire L, et al. The kinematics of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion versus artificial cervical disc: a pilot study. Neurosurgery, 2007, 61(3 Suppl): 100-105.
22. Liu F, Cheng J, Komistek RD, et al.In vivo evaluation of dynamic characteristics of the normal, fused, and disc replacement cervical spines. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 2007, 32(23): 2578-2584.
23. Galbusera F, Bellini CM, Brayda-Bruno M, et al. Biomechanical studies on cervical total disc arthroplasty: a literature review. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon), 2008, 23(9): 1095-1104.
24. 洪瑛, 邓宇骁, 刘浩, 等. 单节段颈椎间盘置换术中颈椎体位对术后颈椎中立位生理轴线重建的影响. 中国修复重建外科杂志, 2013, 27(1): 62-65.
25. Hrabálek L, Vaverka M, Houdek M. Cervical disc arthroplasty (Prodisc-C): analysis of 3 to 4-year follow up results. Rozhl Chir, 2009, 88(11): 634-641.
26. Miyazaki M, Hymanson HJ, Morishita Y, et al. Kinematic analysis of the relationship between sagittal alignment and disc degeneration in the cervical spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 2008, 33(23): E870-876.
27. Johnson JP, Lauryssen C, Cambron HO, et al. Sagittal alignment and the Bryan cervical artificial disc. Neurosurg Focus, 2004, 17(6): E14.

Next Article
Short-term effectiveness of transforaminal unilateral approach for bilateral decompression in lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis

Chinese Journal of Reparative and Reconstructive Surgery

Early effectiveness of cervical disc replacement by using Pretic-I

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Next Article

Format

Content