LOCATION CHANGE OF ROTATION CENTER AFTER SINGLE SEGMENTAL CERVICAL DISC REPLACEMENT WITH ProDisc-C_Chinese Journal of Reparative and Reconstructive Surgery

Authors：

LOUJigang ,  LIUHao , RONGXin , GONGQuan , SONGYueming , LITao

Department of Orthopedics, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu Sichuan, 610041, P. R. China;

Corresponding author：

LIUHao, Email: liuhao6304@163.com

Keywords：

Artificial cervical disc replacement; ProDisc-C prosthesis; Range of motion; Center of rotation

DOI：

10.7507/1002-1892.20150012

Video：

Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of the single segmental cervical disc replacement with ProDisc-C, and to explore the location change of the flexion/extension center of rotation (COR) of the target level as well as its clinical significance. Methods Between June 2010 and February 2012, 23 patients underwent single segmental cervical disc replacement with ProDisc-C, and the clinical data were retrospectively analyzed. Of 23 patients, 9 were male, and 14 were female with the age range from 27 to 65 years (mean, 45 years), and the disease duration ranged from 10 to 84 months (mean, 25 months). There were 15 patients with radiculopathy, 5 patients with myelopathy, and 3 patients with mixed cervical spondylosis. The involved segments were C_4,5 in 5 cases, C_5,6 in 14 cases, and C_6,7 in 4 cases. Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score and neck disability index (NDI) were adopted to evaluate the effectiveness. Preoperative and Postoperative radiographic parameters, such as cervical overall range of motion (ROM), target segmental ROM, the adjacent segmental ROM, and intervertebral height were compared. Besides, the location changes of the COR of the target level were further analyzed by the alteration of its coordinates (COR-X,COR-Y), and the relationships between the location changes of the COR and the effectiveness or the radiographic results were analyzed. Results All the operations were completed successfully; 1 case had hoarseness after operation, which disappeared at 3 months after operation. All cases were followed up 18.3 months on average (range, 6-36 months). There was no device migration, loosening, subsidence, or fracture at last follow-up. The JOA score increased significantly and the NDI score decreased significantly at last follow-up when compared with preoperative scores (P<0.05). No difference was found in the cervical overall ROM, target segmental ROM, the adjacent segmental ROM, and the COR-Y of the target level between pre-operation and last follow-up (P>0.05); while the intervertebral height and the COR-X increased significantly (P<0.05). The change of the COR-X had no obvious correlation with the postoperative JOA, NDI, and target segmental ROM (P>0.05). According to whether the difference of the COR-X between pre- and post-operation was less than the average value 1.86 mm or not, the patients were divided into 2 groups; significant difference was shown in the postoperative target segmental ROM between 2 groups (P<0.05), but no significant difference was found in the postoperative JOA、NDI, cervical overall ROM, adjacent segmental ROM, and the intervertebral height between 2 groups (P>0.05). Conclusion Single segmental cervical disc replacement with ProDisc-C can obtain satisfactory outcomes. The cervical overall ROM, target segmental ROM, and adjacent segmental ROM can be effectively maintained, and the intervertebral height is increased. The location of the flexion/extension COR of the target segment shifts forward after insertion of the ProDisc-C prosthesis, and the postoperative target segmental ROM becomes smaller as the distance of the displacement of the COR becomes greater.

Citation： LOUJigang, LIUHao, RONGXin, GONGQuan, SONGYueming, LITao. LOCATION CHANGE OF ROTATION CENTER AFTER SINGLE SEGMENTAL CERVICAL DISC REPLACEMENT WITH ProDisc-C. Chinese Journal of Reparative and Reconstructive Surgery, 2015, 29(1): 48-53. doi: 10.7507/1002-1892.20150012 Copy

1.	Koller H, Meier O, Zenner J, et al. In vivo analysis of cervical kinematics after implantation of a minimally constrained cervical artificial disc replacement. Eur Spine J, 2013, 22(4):747-758.
2.	Barrey C, Champain S, Campana S, et al. Sagittal alignment and kinematics at instrumented and adjacent levels after total disc replacement in the cervical spine. Eur Spine J, 2012, 21(8):1648-1659.
3.	Duggal N, Bertagnoli R, Rabin D, et al. ProDisc-C:an in vivo kinematic study. J Spinal Disord Tech, 2011, 24(5):334-339.
4.	Rousseau MA, Cottin P, Levante S, et al. In vivo kinematics of two types of ball-and-socket cervical disc replacements in the sagittal plane:cranial versus caudal geometric center. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 2008, 33(1):E6-9.
5.	Jung TG, Woo SH, Park KM, et al. Biomechanical behavior of two different cervical total disc replacement designs in relation of concavity of articular surfaces:ProDisc-C^® vs. Prestige-LP^®. International Journal of Precision Engineering and Manufacturing, 2013, 14(5):819-824.
6.	Lim MR, Girardi FP, Zhang K, et al. Measurement of total disc replacement radiographic range of motion:a comparison of two techniques. J Spinal Disord Tech, 2005, 18(3):252-256.
7.	Dvorak J, Panjabi MM, Grob D, et al. Clinical validation of functional flexion/extension radiographs of the cervical spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 1993, 18(1):120-127.
8.	Dvorak J, Panjabi MM, Novotny JE, et al. In vivo flexion/extension of the normal cervical spine. J Orthop Res, 1991, 9(6):828-834.
9.	Amevo B, Worth D, Bogduk N. Instantaneous axes of rotation of the typical cervical motion segments:a study in normal volunteers. Clinical Biomechanics, 1991, 6(2):111-117.
10.	Amevo B, Aprill C, Bogduk N. Abnormal instantaneous axes of rotation in patients with neck pain. Spine, 1992, 17(7):748-756.
11.	MalhamGM, Parker RM, Ellis NJ, et al. Cervical artificial disc replacement with ProDisc-C:clinical and radiographic outcomes with long-term follow-up. J Clin Neurosci, 2014, 21(6):949-953.
12.	谢华, 徐南伟, 农鲁明, 等. ProDisc-C人工颈椎间盘置换术治疗中老年颈椎病的疗效. 江苏医药, 2011, 37(6):691-693.
13.	赵衍斌, 孙宇, 张凤山, 等. 单节段ProDisc-C颈椎人工椎间盘置换术对颈椎曲度和活动度的影响. 中国脊柱脊髓杂志, 2010, 20(8):677-680.
14.	Murrey D, Janssen M, Delamarter R, 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(4):275-286.
15.	Zigler JE, Delamarter R, Murrey D, et al. ProDisc-C and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion as surgical treatment for single-level cervical symptomatic degenerative disc disease:five-year results of a Food and Drug Administration study. Spine, 2013, 38(3):203-209.
16.	Zhao YB, SUN Y, ZHOU FF, et al. Cervical disc arthroplasty with ProDisc-C artificial disc:5-year radiographic follow-up results. Chinese Medical Journal, 2013, 126(20):3809-3811.
17.	Barna M, Stulik J, Kryl J, et al. ProDisc-C Total Disc Replacement. A four-year prospective monocentric study. Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cech, 2012, 79(6):512-519.
18.	Kowalczyk I, Lazaro BC, Fink M, et al. 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.
19.	Lazaro BC, Yucesoy K, Yuksel KZ, et al. Effect of arthroplasty design on cervical spine kinematics:analysis of the Bryan Disc, ProDisc-C, and Synergy disc. Neurosurg Focus, 2010, 28(6):E6.
20.	Lee CS, Lee DH, Hwang CJ, et al. The effect of a mismatched center of rotation on the clinical outcomes and flexion-extension range of motion:lumbar total disc replacement using Mobidisc at a 5.5-year follow-up. J Spinal Disord Tech, 2014, 27(3):148-153.
21.	Galbusera F, Anasetti F, Bellini CM, et al. The influence of the axial, antero-posterior and lateral positions of the center of rotation of a ball-and-socket disc prosthesis on the cervical spine biomechanics. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon), 2010, 25(5):397-401.
22.	Colle KO, Butler JB, Reyes PM, et al. Biomechanical evaluation of a metal-on-metal cervical intervertebral disc prosthesis. Spine J, 2013, 13(11):1640-1649.
23.	Kelly BP, Zufelt NA, Sander EJ, et al. The influence of fixed sagittal plane centers of rotation on motion segment mechanics and range of motion in the cervical spine. Journal of Biomechanics, 2013, 46(7):1369-1375.

1. Koller H, Meier O, Zenner J, et al. In vivo analysis of cervical kinematics after implantation of a minimally constrained cervical artificial disc replacement. Eur Spine J, 2013, 22(4):747-758.
2. Barrey C, Champain S, Campana S, et al. Sagittal alignment and kinematics at instrumented and adjacent levels after total disc replacement in the cervical spine. Eur Spine J, 2012, 21(8):1648-1659.
3. Duggal N, Bertagnoli R, Rabin D, et al. ProDisc-C:an in vivo kinematic study. J Spinal Disord Tech, 2011, 24(5):334-339.
4. Rousseau MA, Cottin P, Levante S, et al. In vivo kinematics of two types of ball-and-socket cervical disc replacements in the sagittal plane:cranial versus caudal geometric center. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 2008, 33(1):E6-9.
5. Jung TG, Woo SH, Park KM, et al. Biomechanical behavior of two different cervical total disc replacement designs in relation of concavity of articular surfaces:ProDisc-C^® vs. Prestige-LP^®. International Journal of Precision Engineering and Manufacturing, 2013, 14(5):819-824.
6. Lim MR, Girardi FP, Zhang K, et al. Measurement of total disc replacement radiographic range of motion:a comparison of two techniques. J Spinal Disord Tech, 2005, 18(3):252-256.
7. Dvorak J, Panjabi MM, Grob D, et al. Clinical validation of functional flexion/extension radiographs of the cervical spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 1993, 18(1):120-127.
8. Dvorak J, Panjabi MM, Novotny JE, et al. In vivo flexion/extension of the normal cervical spine. J Orthop Res, 1991, 9(6):828-834.
9. Amevo B, Worth D, Bogduk N. Instantaneous axes of rotation of the typical cervical motion segments:a study in normal volunteers. Clinical Biomechanics, 1991, 6(2):111-117.
10. Amevo B, Aprill C, Bogduk N. Abnormal instantaneous axes of rotation in patients with neck pain. Spine, 1992, 17(7):748-756.
11. MalhamGM, Parker RM, Ellis NJ, et al. Cervical artificial disc replacement with ProDisc-C:clinical and radiographic outcomes with long-term follow-up. J Clin Neurosci, 2014, 21(6):949-953.
12. 谢华, 徐南伟, 农鲁明, 等. ProDisc-C人工颈椎间盘置换术治疗中老年颈椎病的疗效. 江苏医药, 2011, 37(6):691-693.
13. 赵衍斌, 孙宇, 张凤山, 等. 单节段ProDisc-C颈椎人工椎间盘置换术对颈椎曲度和活动度的影响. 中国脊柱脊髓杂志, 2010, 20(8):677-680.
14. Murrey D, Janssen M, Delamarter R, 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(4):275-286.
15. Zigler JE, Delamarter R, Murrey D, et al. ProDisc-C and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion as surgical treatment for single-level cervical symptomatic degenerative disc disease:five-year results of a Food and Drug Administration study. Spine, 2013, 38(3):203-209.
16. Zhao YB, SUN Y, ZHOU FF, et al. Cervical disc arthroplasty with ProDisc-C artificial disc:5-year radiographic follow-up results. Chinese Medical Journal, 2013, 126(20):3809-3811.
17. Barna M, Stulik J, Kryl J, et al. ProDisc-C Total Disc Replacement. A four-year prospective monocentric study. Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cech, 2012, 79(6):512-519.
18. Kowalczyk I, Lazaro BC, Fink M, et al. 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.
19. Lazaro BC, Yucesoy K, Yuksel KZ, et al. Effect of arthroplasty design on cervical spine kinematics:analysis of the Bryan Disc, ProDisc-C, and Synergy disc. Neurosurg Focus, 2010, 28(6):E6.
20. Lee CS, Lee DH, Hwang CJ, et al. The effect of a mismatched center of rotation on the clinical outcomes and flexion-extension range of motion:lumbar total disc replacement using Mobidisc at a 5.5-year follow-up. J Spinal Disord Tech, 2014, 27(3):148-153.
21. Galbusera F, Anasetti F, Bellini CM, et al. The influence of the axial, antero-posterior and lateral positions of the center of rotation of a ball-and-socket disc prosthesis on the cervical spine biomechanics. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon), 2010, 25(5):397-401.
22. Colle KO, Butler JB, Reyes PM, et al. Biomechanical evaluation of a metal-on-metal cervical intervertebral disc prosthesis. Spine J, 2013, 13(11):1640-1649.
23. Kelly BP, Zufelt NA, Sander EJ, et al. The influence of fixed sagittal plane centers of rotation on motion segment mechanics and range of motion in the cervical spine. Journal of Biomechanics, 2013, 46(7):1369-1375.

Previous Article
EFFECTIVENESS OF PERCUTANEOUS ENDOSCOPIC TRANSFORAMINAL DISCECTOMY FOR RECURRENT LUMBAR DISC HERNIATION
Next Article
EFFECTIVENESS OF CROSS-LIP FLAP WITH SIMUTANEOUS VASCULAR ANASTOMOSIS

Chinese Journal of Reparative and Reconstructive Surgery

LOCATION CHANGE OF ROTATION CENTER AFTER SINGLE SEGMENTAL CERVICAL DISC REPLACEMENT WITH ProDisc-C

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Previous Article

Next Article

Format

Content