Download PDF
Surg J (N Y) 2015; 01(01): e16-e22
DOI: 10.1055/s-0035-1567876
Original Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Hybrid Solutions for the Surgical Treatment of Multilevel Degenerative Cervical Disk Disease

Stefan Alexander König
1   Neurochirurgische Klinik, Klinikum Karlsruhe, Karlsruhe, Germany
,
Sebastian Ranguis
2   Department of Neurosurgery, Prince of Wales Hospital, Randwick, New South Wales, Australia
,
Uwe Spetzger
1   Neurochirurgische Klinik, Klinikum Karlsruhe, Karlsruhe, Germany
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

15 June 2015

24 September 2015

Publication Date:
19 November 2015 (online)

Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background In different stages of cervical degenerative disk disease, the combination of dynamic and nondynamic implants may be considered. The aim of this study was to investigate the applicability of criteria to assist decision making in these cases.

Methods Thirty patients with spondylotic cervical radiculopathy and a coincidence of soft disk and hard disk herniation were surgically treated with a hybrid solution (combination of total disk replacement and cage fusion). The control group included 32 patients who underwent two-level cage fusion. Pre- and postoperative Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores and range of motion (ROM) were compared.

Results Twenty-three patients underwent two-level hybrid solution and 7 underwent three-level treatment. The most frequent solution (n = 13) was a combination of a dynamic implant at C5–C6 and a nondynamic implant at C6–C7. The mean JOA score improved from 13.9 to 15.6 points after surgery (mean deviation [MD] 1.6, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.1 to 1.2, p < 0.001). ROM showed a slight trend to increase (MD 0.8, 95% CI −0.9 to 2.6, p = 0.193). In the control group, the mean JOA score improved from 13.3 to 15.1 points after surgery (MD 1.4, 95% CI 2.1 to 1.2, p < 0.001). The comparison of the postoperative JOA scores and recovery rates between the hybrid treatment group and the control group did not show significant differences.

Conclusions In cases of coincident soft and hard degenerative cervical disk disease at adjacent levels, the combination of a disk prosthesis and a nondynamic implant is a safe and effective treatment option and an alternative to multilevel fusion.

Keywords

cervical spine - degeneration - fusion - disk replacement - hybrid surgery
 

  • References

  • 1 Barbagallo GM, Assietti R, Corbino L , et al. Early results and review of the literature of a novel hybrid surgical technique combining cervical arthrodesis and disc arthroplasty for treating multilevel degenerative disc disease: opposite or complementary techniques?. Eur Spine J 2009; 18 (Suppl. 01) 29-39
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Barrey C, Campana S, Persohn S, Perrin G, Skalli W. Cervical disc prosthesis versus arthrodesis using one-level, hybrid and two-level constructs: an in vitro investigation. Eur Spine J 2012; 21 (3) 432-442
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Cardoso MJ, Rosner MK. Multilevel cervical arthroplasty with artificial disc replacement. Neurosurg Focus 2010; 28 (5) E19
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Cho BY, Lim J, Sim HB, Park J. Biomechanical analysis of the range of motion after placement of a two-level cervical ProDisc-C versus hybrid construct. Spine 2010; 35 (19) 1769-1776
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Du J, Li M, Liu H, Meng H, He Q, Luo Z. Early follow-up outcomes after treatment of degenerative disc disease with the discover cervical disc prosthesis. Spine J 2011; 11 (4) 281-289
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Gebremariam L, Koes BW, Peul WC, Huisstede BM. Evaluation of treatment effectiveness for the herniated cervical disc: a systematic review. Spine 2012; 37 (2) E109-E118
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Korge A, Siepe CJ, Heider F, Mayer HM. [Total cervical disk replacement—implant-specific approaches: keel implant (Prodisc-C intervertebral disk prosthesis)]. Oper Orthop Traumatol 2010; 22 (5–6) 480-494
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Park SB, Jahng TA, Chung CK. Remodeling of adjacent spinal alignments following cervical arthroplasty and anterior discectomy and fusion. Eur Spine J 2012; 21 (2) 322-327
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Svedmark P, Lundh F, Németh G , et al. Motion analysis of total cervical disc replacements using computed tomography: preliminary experience with nine patients and a model. Acta Radiol 2011; 52 (10) 1128-1137
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Goel VK, Faizan A, Palepu V, Bhattacharya S. Parameters that effect spine biomechanics following cervical disc replacement. Eur Spine J 2012; 21 (Suppl. 05) S688-S699
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Kepler CK, Hilibrand AS. Management of adjacent segment disease after cervical spinal fusion. Orthop Clin North Am 2012; 43 (1) 53-62 , viii
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Lee MJ, Dumonski M, Phillips FM , et al. Disc replacement adjacent to cervical fusion: a biomechanical comparison of hybrid construct versus two-level fusion. Spine 2011; 36 (23) 1932-1939
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Shin DA, Yi S, Yoon DH, Kim KN, Shin HC. Artificial disc replacement combined with fusion versus two-level fusion in cervical two-level disc disease. Spine 2009; 34 (11) 1153-1159 , discussion 1160–1161
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Terai T, Faizan A, Sairyo K, Goel VK. Operated and adjacent segment motions for fusion versus cervical arthroplasty: a pilot study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2011; 469 (3) 682-687
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Kowalczyk I, Lazaro BC, Fink M, Rabin D, Duggal N. Analysis of in vivo kinematics of 3 different cervical devices: Bryan disc, ProDisc-C, and Prestige LP disc. J Neurosurg Spine 2011; 15 (6) 630-635
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 König A, Vitzthum HE. Functional MRI of the spine: different patterns of positions of the forward flexed lumbar spine in healthy subjects. Eur Spine J 2001; 10 (5) 437-442
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Vitzthum HE, König A, Seifert V. Dynamic examination of the lumbar spine by using vertical, open magnetic resonance imaging. J Neurosurg 2000; 93 (1, Suppl): 58-64
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 White AA, Panjabi MM. Clinical Biomechanics of the Spine. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, PA: JB Lippincott; 1990: 58-62
    Google Scholar
  • 19 Lee SH, Im YJ, Kim KT, Kim YH, Park WM, Kim K. Comparison of cervical spine biomechanics after fixed- and mobile-core artificial disc replacement: a finite element analysis. Spine 2011; 36 (9) 700-708
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Cardoso MJ, Mendelsohn A, Rosner MK. Cervical hybrid arthroplasty with 2 unique fusion techniques. J Neurosurg Spine 2011; 15 (1) 48-54
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Guérin P, Obeid I, Gille O , et al. Sagittal alignment after single cervical disc arthroplasty. J Spinal Disord Tech 2012; 25 (1) 10-16
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Richards O, Choi D, Timothy J. Cervical arthroplasty: the beginning, the middle, the end?. Br J Neurosurg 2012; 26 (1) 2-6
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Finn MA, Samuelson MM, Bishop F, Bachus KN, Brodke DS. Two-level noncontiguous versus three-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a biomechanical comparison. Spine 2011; 36 (6) 448-453
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Koller H, Hempfing A, Ferraris L, Maier O, Hitzl W, Metz-Stavenhagen P. 4- and 5-level anterior fusions of the cervical spine: review of literature and clinical results. Eur Spine J 2007; 16 (12) 2055-2071
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Womack W, Leahy PD, Patel VV, Puttlitz CM. Finite element modeling of kinematic and load transmission alterations due to cervical intervertebral disc replacement. Spine 2011; 36 (17) E1126-E1133
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar