Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Asian J Neurosurg 2020; 15(04): 856-862
DOI: 10.4103/ajns.AJNS_288_20
Original Article

Clinico-radiological outcome of single-level and hybrid total disc replacement with spineart Baguera®-C for cervical myeloradiculopathy: Minimum 2-year follow-up study in Indian population

Jeevan Sharma
Indian Spinal Injuries Center, New Delhi
,
Tarush Rustagi
Indian Spinal Injuries Center, New Delhi
,
Nandan Marathe
Indian Spinal Injuries Center, New Delhi
,
Abhinandan Mallepally
Indian Spinal Injuries Center, New Delhi
,
Rajat Mahajan
Indian Spinal Injuries Center, New Delhi
,
Harvinder Chhabra
Indian Spinal Injuries Center, New Delhi
,
Kalidutta Das
Indian Spinal Injuries Center, New Delhi
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Context: Cervical radiculopathy and myelopathy is one of the most frequent ailments encountered by spine surgeon. Motion-preserving surgeries in cervical spine is a standard of care due to its certain advantages such as biomechanical anatomical conformity, reduced chances of adjacent segment degeneration, and revision surgeries. While there is abundant data from some centers, data from developing countries are still limited. Aims: The aim was to study the clinico-radiological outcome of single-level and hybrid total disc replacement (TDR) with Spineart Baguera®-C cervical prosthesis for cervical myeloradiculopathy. Settings and Design: Retrospective study. Materials and Methods: Retrospective analysis of the 29 consecutive patient undergoing single level TDR and hybrid fixation (i.e., TDR with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion) with Spineart Baguera®-C cervical prosthesis for myeloradiculopathy from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2017, was done. Radiological features and outcome were studied from data collected on Insta-picture archiving and communication system. Statistical Analysis Used: SAS 9.4 was used for all computations. Results on continuous measurements were presented as mean and standard deviation (min-max) and results on categorical measurements were presented as numbers (n) and percentages. Results: Twenty-nine patients were included in the study. The mean age was 43.31 ± 9.04 years with 14 males and 15 females. The most common level of TDR was C5-C6 (72.41%). The mean follow-up duration was 3.14 years ± 1.13 years (2–5 years). The mean hospital stay was 4.93 ± 2.12 days. The mean neck disability index (NDI) at admission was 27.24 ± 7.66 which decreased to 6.41 ± 4.29 at final follow-up. Conclusions: Two-year data on treatment with Spineart Baguera®-C cervical prosthesis shows significantly improved NDI, visual analog scale (arm) with maintenance of movement of the prosthesis.

Key-words:

Cervical - myeloradiculopathy - Spineart Baguera®-C - total disc replacement

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.




Publication History

Received: 11 June 2020

Accepted: 17 September 2020

Article published online:
16 August 2022

© 2020. Asian Congress of Neurological Surgeons. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Fernström U. Arthroplasty with intercorporal endoprothesis in herniated disc and in painful disc. Acta Chir Scand Suppl 1966;357:154-9.
  • 2 Benmekhbi M, Mortada J, Lungu G, Eichler D, Srour R, Vital JM. Baguera cervical disc prosthesis. Interact Surg 2008;3:201-4.
  • 3 Cloward R. The anterior approach for ruptured cervical discs. J Neurosurg 1958;15:602-14.
  • 4 Robinson R, Smith G. Anterolateral cervical disc removal and interbody fusion for cervical disc syndrome. Bull John Hopkins Hosp 1955;96:223-4.
  • 5 Matsumoto M, Okada E, Ichihara D, Watanabe K, Chiba K, Toyama Y, et al. Anterior cervical decompression and fusion accelerates adjacent segment degeneration: Comparison with asymptomatic volunteers in a ten-year magnetic resonance imaging follow-up study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2010;35:36-43.
  • 6 Helgeson MD, Bevevino AJ, Hilibrand AS. Update on the evidence for adjacent segment degeneration and disease. Spine J 2013;13:342-51.
  • 7 Xu B, Ma JX, Tian JH, Ge L, Ma XL. Indirect meta-analysis comparing clinical outcomes of total cervical disc replacements with fusions for cervical degenerative disc disease. Sci Rep 2017;7:1740.
  • 8 Gao F, Mao T, Sun W, Guo W, Wang Y, Li Z, et al. An updated meta-analysis comparing artificial cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for the treatment of cervical degenerative disc disease (CDDD). Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2015;40:1816-23.
  • 9 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:e0149312.
  • 10 Murtagh R, Castellvi AE. Motion preservation surgery in the spine. Neuroimaging Clin N Am 2014;24:287-94.
  • 11 Turel MK, Kerolus MG, Adogwa O, Traynelis VC. Cervical arthroplasty: What does the labeling say? Neurosurg Focus 2017;42:E2.
  • 12 Fransen P, Pointillart V. Arthroplasty with the Baguera cervical disc prosthesis: A review of the scientific background, clinical and radiographic evidences. J Spine Neurosurg. 2016;05:1-5.
  • 13 Fransen P, Hansen-Algenstaedt N. Radiographic outcome and adjacent segment evaluation two years after cervical disc replacement with the Baguera®C prosthesis as treatment of degenerative cervical disc disease. J Spine. 2016;05:1-7.
  • 14 Mehren C, Suchomel P, Grochulla F, Barsa P, Sourkova P, Hradil J, et al. Heterotopic ossification in total cervical artificial disc replacement. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2006;31:2802-6.
  • 15 Suchomel P, Barsa P, Buchvald P, Svobodnik A, Vanickova E. Autologous versus allogenic bone grafts in instrumented anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: A prospective study with respect to bone union pattern. Eur Spine J 2004;13:510-5.
  • 16 Löfgren H, Engquist M, Hoffmann P, Sigstedt B, Vavruch L. Clinical and radiological evaluation of Trabecular Metal and the Smith-Robinson technique in anterior cervical fusion for degenerative disease: A prospective, randomized, controlled study with 2-year follow-up. Eur Spine J 2010;19:464-73.
  • 17 Lee JC, Lee SH, Peters C, Riew KD. Risk-factor analysis of adjacent-segment pathology requiring surgery following anterior, posterior, fusion, and nonfusion cervical spine operations: Survivorship analysis of 1358 patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2014;96:1761-7.
  • 18 Sasso WR, Smucker JD, Sasso MP, Sasso RC. Long-term clinical outcomes of cervical disc arthroplasty: A prospective, randomized, controlled trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2017;42:209-16.
  • 19 Lavelle WF, Riew KD, Levi AD, Florman JE. Ten-year outcomes of cervical disc replacement with the BRYAN cervical disc: Results from a prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2019;44:601-8.
  • 20 Durbhakula MM, Ghiselli G. Cervical total disc replacement, part I: Rationale, biomechanics, and implant types. Orthop Clin North Am 2005;36:349-54.
  • 21 Malham GM, Parker RM, Ellis NJ, Chan PG, Varma D. Cervical artificial disc replacement with ProDisc-C: Clinical and radiographic outcomes with long-term follow-up. J Clin Neurosci 2014;21:949-53.
  • 22 Mummaneni PV, Burkus JK, Haid RW, Traynelis VC, Zdeblick TA. Clinical and radiographic analysis of cervical disc arthroplasty compared with allograft fusion: A randomized controlled clinical trial. J Neurosurg Spine 2007;6:198-209.
  • 23 Vaccaro A, Beutler W, Peppelman W, Marzluff JM, Highsmith J, Mugglin A, et al. Clinical outcomes with selectively constrained SECURE-C cervical disc arthroplasty: Two-year results from a prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter investigational device exemption study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2013;38:2227-39.
  • 24 Vital J, Guérin P, Gille O, Pointillart V. Prothèses discales cervicales. EMC 2011:44-162.
  • 25 Hisey MS, Zigler JE, Jackson R, Nunley PD, Bae HW, Kim KD, et al. Prospective, randomized comparison of one-level Mobi-C cervical total disc replacement vs. anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: Results at 5-year follow-up. Int J Spine Surg 2015;10:1-10.
  • 26 Murrey D, Janssen M, Delamarter R, Goldstein J, Zigler J, Tay B, et al. 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;9:275-86.
  • 27 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;34:101-7.
  • 28 Yi S, Kim KN, Yang MS, Yang JW, Kim H, Ha Y, et al. Difference in occurrence of heterotopic ossification according to prosthesis type in the cervical artificial disc replacement. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2010;35:1556-61.
  • 29 Chen J, Wang X, Bai W, Shen X, Yuan W. Prevalence of heterotopic ossification after cervical total disc arthroplasty: A meta-analysis. Eur Spine J 2012;21:674-80.
  • 30 Wu JC, Huang WC, Tsai HW, Ko CC, Fay LY, Tu TH, et al. Differences between 1-and 2-level cervical arthroplasty: More heterotopic ossification in 2-level disc replacement: Clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 2012;16:594-600.
  • 31 Zhou HH, Qu Y, Dong RP, Kang MY, Zhao JW. Does heterotopic ossification affect the outcomes of cervical total disc replacement? A meta-analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2015;40:E332-40.
  • 32 Noriega DC, Medrano BG, Cortes JM, Martinez M, Hernandez R, Plata M, et al. Severity of heterotopic ossification in relation to cervical prosthesis type and surgery-related factors. Spine J. 2012;12:S133-4.
  • 33 Tu TH, Wu JC, Huang WC, Wu CL, Ko CC, Chen H. The effects of carpentry on heterotopic ossification and mobility in cervical arthroplasty: Determination by computed tomography with a minimum 2-year follow-up. J Neurosurg Spine 2012;16:601-9.
  • 34 Zhu XT, Chen L, Lin JH. Selective COX-2 inhibitor versus non-selective COX-2 inhibitor for the prevention of heterotopic ossification after total hip arthroplasty: A meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore) 2018;97:e11649.
  • 35 Joice M, Vasileiadis GI, Amanatullah DF. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for heterotopic ossification prophylaxis after total hip arthroplasty: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Bone Joint J 2018;100-B: 915-22.
  • 36 Zhu Y, Fang J, Xu G, Ye X, Zhang Y. A hybrid technique for treating multilevel cervical myelopathy: Cervical artificial disc replacement combined with fusion. Oncol Lett 2019;17:360-4.
  • 37 Lee SB, Cho KS, Kim JY, Yoo DS, Lee TG, Huh PW. Hybrid surgery of multilevel cervical degenerative disc disease: Review of literature and clinical results. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 2012;52:452-8.