Zhu Ce, Yang Xi, Wang Lei, Hu Bo-Wen, Liu Li-Min, Wang Lin-Nan, Liu Hao, Song Yue-Ming
Department of Orthopedics Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, China.
Department of Orthopedics Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, China.
Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2018 Jan;164:103-107. doi: 10.1016/j.clineuro.2017.12.001. Epub 2017 Dec 5.
To compare clinical and radiographic outcomes of dynamic cervical implant(DCI) with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion(ACDF) in the treatment of single-level cervical degenerative disc disease (CDDD) 5 years after surgery.
Forty-three patients with DCI were matched one-to-one with patients with ACDF based on age, gender, and operative segment in this retrospective study. All patients had been followed up for more than 5 years. Radiological assessments included heterotopic ossification(HO), adjacent segment degeneration (ASD), intervertebral height (IH), range of motion (ROM) at C2-7, the implanted level and adjacent levels. Clinical parameters included Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) scores, Neck Disability Index (NDI) and Short Form-36 scores(SF-36). Patients were also asked to rate their postoperative satisfaction at final follow-up.
The postoperative ROM of C2-7 and ROM at the implanted level in the DCI group were higher than those in the ACDF group. The ROM at the implanted level in the DCI group was maintained at 2 years postoperatively but decreased at final follow-up (10.7° vs 4.5°). The rate of HO in the DCI group was 46.5% (20/43). The rate of ASD was comparable between the two groups (16.3% vs 20.9%). The JOA, VAS, NDI, and SF-36 scores were comparable between two groups and improved postoperatively. However, the proportion of patients who reported their level of satisfaction as being very satisfied, or somewhat satisfied was larger in the ACDF group than that in the DCI group (95.3% vs 79.1%).
DCI resulted in better ROM of C2-7 and the implanted level than ACDF did. The clinical outcomes were similar between two groups. However, the ROM at the implanted level decreased at final follow-up in the DCI group, which may contribute to patient dissatisfaction. The long-term outcomes were not that satisfactory especially due to the deviation from its original intention as a non-fusion technique. As such, we have not used DCI in the past 2 years.
比较动力型颈椎植入物(DCI)与颈椎前路椎间盘切除融合术(ACDF)治疗单节段颈椎退变性椎间盘疾病(CDDD)术后5年的临床和影像学结果。
在这项回顾性研究中,根据年龄、性别和手术节段,将43例接受DCI治疗的患者与接受ACDF治疗的患者进行一对一匹配。所有患者均随访超过5年。影像学评估包括异位骨化(HO)、相邻节段退变(ASD)、椎间高度(IH)、C2-7节段的活动度(ROM)、植入节段及相邻节段情况。临床参数包括视觉模拟评分(VAS)日本骨科学会(JOA)评分、颈部功能障碍指数(NDI)和简明健康状况调查量表(SF-36)评分。还要求患者在末次随访时对术后满意度进行评分。
DCI组术后C2-7节段及植入节段的ROM高于ACDF组。DCI组植入节段的ROM在术后2年保持,但在末次随访时下降(10.7°对4.5°)。DCI组HO发生率为46.5%(20/43)。两组ASD发生率相当(16.3%对20.9%)。两组JOA、VAS、NDI和SF-36评分相当,且术后均有所改善。然而,报告满意度为非常满意或有点满意的患者比例,ACDF组高于DCI组(95.3%对79.1%)。
DCI在C2-7节段及植入节段的ROM方面优于ACDF。两组临床结果相似。然而,DCI组植入节段的ROM在末次随访时下降,这可能导致患者不满意。长期结果并不令人满意,特别是因为其作为非融合技术偏离了初衷。因此,在过去2年中我们未使用DCI。