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

Abstract

Study design: Prospective cohort study.

Objective: The aim of the study was to compare clinical results and to determine differences in outcomes between anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and disc arthroplasty in patients treated for symptomatic cervical degenerative disc disease.

Methods: Forty patients with cervical degenerative disc disease were treated with ProDisc-C disc arthroplasty and 40 patients with fusion using an intervetebral spacer with integrated fixation (Cervios chronoOS) implants without additional anterior fixation. Fifty disc prostheses were placed in the first group and 52 intervertebral spacers were implanted in the second group. Clinical outcomes were assessed before and 12 months following the procedure using the neck disability index (NDI) and visual analog scale (VAS) for neck and arm pain, with 15% improvement in NDI and 20% in VAS defined as a clinically significant.

Results: Eighty patients with cervical degenerative disc disease with a mean age of 49.7 years were included in the study with a minimum follow-up of 12 months. The groups were similar at baseline both clinically and statistically (P > .05) except for age and VAS for arm pain. Both groups had a statistically significant improvement in NDI and VAS for neck and arm pain (P <.05) and the arthroplasty group had a better improvement according to NDI (74.3% of patients in the arthroplasty group achieved ≥ 15% improvement in NDI versus 65.7% of patients in ACDF group).

Conclusions: Both ProDisc C and Cervios chronoOS prostheses resulted in significant pain reduction and functional outcome for the patients with slightly better results in the group treated with disc arthroplasty 12 months after the surgery.

References

• 1 Philips F M, Garfin S R. Cervical Disc Replacement.  Spine. 2005;  30 S27-33
• 2 Nabhan A, Ahlhelm F, Shariat K. et al . The Prodisc-C Prothesis.  Spine. 2007;  32 1935-1941
• 3 DiAngelo D, Foley K T, Morrow B R. et al . In vitro biomechanics of cervical disc arthroplasty with the Prodisc-C total disc implant.  Neurosurgical Focus. 2004;  17 (3) 44-54
• 4 Bertagnoli R, Yue J J, Pfeiffer F. et al . Early results after Prodisc-C cervical replacement.  J Neurosurg: Spine. 2005;  2 403-410
• 5 Chang U K, Kim D H, Lee M C. et al . Range of motion change after cervical arthroplasty with Prodisc-C artificial discs compared with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion.  J Neurosurg: Spine. 2007;  7 40-46
• 6 Kim S W, Shin J H, Arbatin J J. et al . Effects of a cervical disc prosthesis on maintaining sagittal alignment of the functional spinal unit and overall sagittal balance of the cervical spine.  Eur Spine J. 2008;  17 20-29
• 7 Nabhan A, Ahlhelm F, Pitzen T. et al . Disc replacement using Prodisc-C versus fusion: a prospective randomized and controlled radiographic and clinical study.  Eur Spine J. 2007;  16 423-430