No abstract

Purpose Although arthroplasty is an accepted option for two-level disease, there is a paucity of data regarding outcomes of two-level cervical arthroplasty. The current study was designed to determine differences between twolevel cervical arthroplasty and anterior fusion. Methods Seventy-seven consecutive patients who underwent two-level anterior cervical operations for degenerative disc disease were divided into the arthroplasty (37 patients) and fusion (40 patients) groups. Clinical outcomes were measured by Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) of neck and arm pain, Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) scores, and Neck Disability Index (NDI). Every patient was evaluated by radiography and computed tomography for fusion or detection of heterotopic ossification.Results Thirty-seven patients (with 74 levels of Bryan discs) were compared with 40 patients who had two-level anterior fusion (mean follow-up of 39.6 ± 6.7 months). There was no difference in sex, but the mean age of the arthroplasty group was significantly younger (52.1 ± 9.1 vs. 63.0 ± 10.6 years, p \ 0.001). The mean estimated blood loss was similar (p = 0.135), but the mean operation time was longer in the arthroplasty group (315.5 ± 82.0 versus 224.9 ± 61.8 min, p \ 0.001). At 24 months post-operation, the arthroplasty group had increased their range of motion than pre-operation (23.5°versus 20.1°, p = 0.018). There were significant improvements in neck or arm VAS, JOA scores, and NDI in both groups. However, there were no differences in clinical outcomes or adverse events between the two groups. Conclusions Clinical outcomes of two-level arthroplasty and anterior cervical fusion are similar 39.6 months after surgery. Cervical arthroplasty preserves mobility at the index levels without increased adverse effects.

Clinical outcomes of 1- and 2-level cervical arthroplasty were similar at 46 months after surgery, and patients in both groups had significantly improved compared with preoperative status. However, there was a significantly higher rate of heterotopic ossification formation and less mobility of the Bryan disc in patients who underwent 2-level arthroplasty. Although mobility to date has been maintained in the vast majority (94.3%) of patients, the long-term effects of heterotopic ossification warrant further investigation.

OBJECTIVEPedicle screw–based dynamic stabilization has been an alternative to conventional lumbar fusion for the surgical management of low-grade spondylolisthesis. However, the true effect of dynamic stabilization on adjacent-segment degeneration (ASD) remains undetermined. Authors of this study aimed to investigate the incidence of ASD and to compare the clinical outcomes of dynamic stabilization and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF).METHODSThe records of consecutive patients with Meyerding grade I degenerative spondylolisthesis who had undergone surgical management at L4–5 in the period from 2007 to 2014 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were divided into two groups according to the surgery performed: Dynesys dynamic stabilization (DDS) group and MI-TLIF group. Pre- and postoperative radiological evaluations, including radiography, CT, and MRI studies, were compared. Adjacent discs were evaluated using 4 radiological parameters: instability (antero- or retrolisthesis), disc degeneration (Pfirrmann classification), endplate degeneration (Modic classification), and range of motion (ROM). Clinical outcomes, measured with the visual analog scale (VAS) for back and leg pain, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores, were also compared.RESULTSA total of 79 patients with L4–5 degenerative spondylolisthesis were included in the analysis. During a mean follow-up of 35.2 months (range 24–89 months), there were 56 patients in the DDS group and 23 in the MI-TLIF group. Prior to surgery, both groups were very similar in demographic, radiological, and clinical data. Postoperation, both groups had similarly significant improvement in clinical outcomes (VAS, ODI, and JOA scores) at each time point of evaluation. There was a lower chance of disc degeneration (Pfirrmann classification) of the adjacent discs in the DDS group than in the MI-TLIF group (17% vs 37%, p = 0.01). However, the DDS and MI-TLIF groups had similar rates of instability (15.2% vs 17.4%, respectively, p = 0.92) and endplate degeneration (1.8% vs 6.5%, p = 0.30) at the cranial (L3–4) and caudal (L5–S1) adjacent levels after surgery. The mean ROM in the cranial and caudal levels was also similar in the two groups. None of the patients required secondary surgery for any ASD (defined by radiological criteria).CONCLUSIONSThe clinical improvements after DDS were similar to those following MI-TLIF for L4–5 Meyerding grade I degenerative spondylolisthesis at 3 years postoperation. According to radiological evaluations, there was a lower chance of disc degeneration in the adjacent levels of the patients who had undergone DDS. However, other radiological signs of ASD, including instability, endplate degeneration, and ROM, were similar between the two groups. Although none of the patients in the present series required secondary surgery, a longer follow-up and a larger number of patients would be necessary to corroborate the protective effect of DDS against ASD.

Object Cervical arthroplasty has been accepted as a viable option for surgical management of cervical spondylosis or degenerative disc disease (DDD). The best candidates for cervical arthroplasty are young patients who have radiculopathy caused by herniated disc with competent facet joints. However, it remains uncertain whether arthroplasty is equally effective for patients who have cervical myelopathy caused by DDD. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of arthroplasty for patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) and patients with radiculopathy without CSM. Methods A total of 151 consecutive cases involving patients with CSM or radiculopathy caused by DDD and who underwent one- or two-level cervical arthroplasty were included in this study. Clinical outcome evaluations and radiographic studies were reviewed. Clinical outcome measurements included the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) of neck and arm pain, Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores, and the Neck Disability Index (NDI) in every patient. For patients with CSM, Nurick scores were recorded for evaluation of cervical myelopathy. Radiographic studies included lateral dynamic radiographs and CT for detection of the formation of heterotopic ossification . Results Of the 151 consecutive patients with cervical DDD, 125 (82.8%; 72 patients in the myelopathy group and 53 in the radiculopathy group) had at least 24 months of clinical and radiographic follow-up. The mean duration of follow-up in these patients was 36.4 months (range 24–56 months). There was no difference in sex distribution between the 2 groups. However, the mean age of the patients in the myelopathy group was approximately 6 years greater than that of the radiculopathy group (53.1 vs 47.2 years, p < 0.001). The mean operation time, mean estimated blood loss, and the percentage of patients prescribed perioperative analgesic agents were similar in both groups (p = 0.754, 0.652, and 0.113, respectively). There were significant improvements in VAS neck and arm pain, JOA scores, and NDI in both groups. Nurick scores in the myelopathy group also improved significantly after surgery. In radiographic evaluations, 92.5% of patients in the radiculopathy group and 95.8% of those in the radiculopathy group retained spinal motion (no significant difference). Evaluation of CT scans showed heterotopic ossification in 34 patients (47.2%) in the myelopathy group and 25 patients (47.1%) in the radiculopathy group (p = 0.995). At a mean of over 3 years postoperatively, no secondary surgery was reported in either group. Conclusions The severity of myelopathy improves after cervical arthroplasty in patients with CSM caused by DDD. At 3-year follow-up, the clinical and radiographic outcomes of cervical arthroplasty in DDD patients with CSM are similar to those patients who have only cervical radiculopathy. Therefore, cervical arthroplasty is a viable option for patients with CSM caused by DDD who require anterior surgery. However, comparison with the standard surgical treatment of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion is necessary to corroborate the outcomes of arthroplasty for CSM.