DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparative Analysis between Total Disc Replacement and Posterior Foraminotomy for Posterolateral Soft Disc Herniation with Unilateral Radiculopathy : Clinical and Biomechanical Results of a Minimum 5 Years Follow-up

  • Kim, Kyoung-Tae (Department of Neurosurgery, Kyungpook National University Hospital) ;
  • Cho, Dae-Chul (Department of Neurosurgery, Kyungpook National University Hospital) ;
  • Sung, Joo-Kyung (Department of Neurosurgery, Kyungpook National University Hospital) ;
  • Kim, Young-Baeg (Department of Neurosurgery, Chung-Ang University Hospital) ;
  • Kim, Du Hwan (Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Keimyung University Hospital)
  • 투고 : 2015.06.01
  • 심사 : 2015.10.14
  • 발행 : 2017.01.01

초록

Objective : To compare the clinical outcomes and biomechanical effects of total disc replacement (TDR) and posterior cervical foraminotomy (PCF) and to propose relative inclusion criteria. Methods : Thirty-five patients who underwent surgery between 2006 and 2008 were included. All patients had single-level disease and only radiculopathy. The overall sagittal balance and angle and height of a functional segmental unit (FSU; upper and lower vertebral body of the operative lesion) were assessed by preoperative and follow-up radiographs. C2-7 range of motion (ROM), FSU, and the adjacent segment were also checked. Results : The clinical outcome of TDR (group A) was tended to be superior to that of PCF (group B) without statistical significance. In the group A, preoperative and postoperative upper adjacent segment level motion values were $8.6{\pm}2.3$ and $8.4{\pm}2.0$, and lower level motion values were $8.4{\pm}2.2$ and $8.3{\pm}1.9$. Preoperative and postoperative FSU heights were $37.0{\pm}2.1$ and $37.1{\pm}1.8$. In the group B, upper level adjacent segment motion values were $8.1{\pm}2.6$ and $8.2{\pm}2.8$, and lower level motion values were $6.5{\pm}3.3$ and $6.3{\pm}3.1$. FSU heights were $37.1{\pm}2.0$ and $36.2{\pm}1.8$. The postoperative FSU motion and height changes were significant (p<0.05). The patient's satisfaction rates for surgery were 88.2% in group A and 88.8% in group B. Conclusion : TDR and PCF have favorable outcomes in patients with unilateral soft disc herniation. However, patients have different biomechanical backgrounds, so the patient's biomechanical characteristics and economic status should be understood and treated using the optimal procedure.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Aldrich F : Posterolateral microdisectomy for cervical monoradiculopathy caused by posterolateral soft cervical disc sequestration. J Neurosurg 72 : 370-377, 1990 https://doi.org/10.3171/jns.1990.72.3.0370
  2. Bazaz R, Lee MJ, Yoo JU : Incidence of dysphagia after anterior cervical spine surgery: a prospective study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 27 : 2453- 2458, 2002 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200211150-00007
  3. Beaurain J, Bernard P, Dufour T, Fuentes JM, Hovorka I, Huppert J, et al. : Intermediate clinical and radiological results of cervical TDR (Mobi-C) with up to 2 years of follow-up. Eur Spine J 18 : 841-850, 2009 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-009-1017-6
  4. Caglar YS, Bozkurt M, Kahilogullari G, Tuna H, Bakir A, Torun F, et al. : Keyhole approach for posterior cervical discectomy: experience on 84 patients. Minim Invasive Neurosurg 50 : 7-11, 2007 https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2007-970138
  5. Cho HJ, Shin MH, Huh JW, Ryu KS, Park CK : Heterotopic ossification following cervical total disc replacement: iatrogenic or constitutional? Korean J Spine 9 : 209-214, 2012 https://doi.org/10.14245/kjs.2012.9.3.209
  6. Cloward RB : The anterior approach for removal of ruptured cervical disks. J Neurosurg 15 : 602-617, 1958 https://doi.org/10.3171/jns.1958.15.6.0602
  7. Ducker TB, Zeidman SM : The posterior operative approach for cervical radiculopathy. Neurosurg Clin N Am 4 : 61-74, 1993
  8. Duggal N, Pickett GE, Mitsis DK, Keller JL : Early clinical and biomechanical results following cervical arthroplasty. Neurosurg Focus 17 : E9, 2004 https://doi.org/10.3171/foc.2004.17.1.2
  9. Fehlings MG, Gray RJ : Posterior cervical foraminotomy for the treatment of cervical radiculopathy. J Neurosurg Spine 10 : 343-344, 2009 https://doi.org/10.3171/2009.1.SPINE08899
  10. Gala VC, O'Toole JE, Voyadzis JM, Fessler RG : Posterior minimally invasive approaches for the cervical spine. Orthop Clin North Am 38 : 339-349, 2007 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocl.2007.02.009
  11. Henderson CM, Hennessy RG, Henry M Jr, Shackelford GE : Posteriorlateral foraminotomy as an exclusive operative technique for cervical radiculopathy: a review of 846 consecutively operated cases. Neurosurgery 13 : 504-512, 1983 https://doi.org/10.1227/00006123-198311000-00004
  12. Hilton DL Jr : Minimally invasive tubular access for posterior cervical foraminotomy with three-dimensional microscopic visualization and localization with anterior/posterior imaging. Spine J 7 : 154-158, 2007 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2006.03.007
  13. Hrabalek L, Vaverka M, Houdek M : Cervical disc arthroplasty (Prodisc-C): analysis of 3 to 4- year follow up results. Rozhl Chir 88 : 634-641, 2009
  14. Jagannathan J, Sherman JH, Szabo T, Shaffrey CI, Jane JA : The posterior cervical foraminotomy in the treatment of cervical disc/osteophyte disease: a single-surgeon experience with a minimum of 5 years' clinical and radiographic follow-up. J Neurosurg Spine 10 : 347-356, 2009 https://doi.org/10.3171/2008.12.SPINE08576
  15. Jin YJ, Park SB, Kim MJ, Kim KJ, Kim HJ : An analysis of heterotopic ossification in cervical disc arthroplasty: a novel morphologic classification of an ossified mass. Spine J 13 : 408-420, 2013 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2012.11.048
  16. Jodicke A, Daentzer D, Kastner S, Asamoto S, Boker DK : Risk factors for outcome and complications of dorsal foraminotomy in cervical disc herniation. Surg Neurol 60 : 124-129; discussion 129-130, 2003 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-3019(03)00267-2
  17. Kang SH, Kim DK, Seo KM, Kim KT, Kim YB : Multi-level spinal fusion and postoperative prevertebral thickness increase the risk of dysphagia after anterior cervical spine surgery. J Clin Neurosci 18 : 1369-1373, 2011 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocn.2011.02.033
  18. Kim KT, Kim YB : Comparison between open procedure and tubular retractor assisted procedure for cervical radiculopathy: results of a randomized controlled study. J Korean Med Sci 24 : 649-653, 2009 https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2009.24.4.649
  19. Korinth MC, Kruger A, Oertel MF, Gilsbach JM : Posterior foraminotomy or anterior discectomy with polymethyl methacrylate interbody stabilization for cervical soft disc disease: results in 292 patients with monoradiculopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31 : 1207-1214, 2006 https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000217604.02663.59
  20. Leung C, Casey AT, Goffin J, Kehr P, Liebig K, Lind B, et al. : Clinical significance of heterotopic ossification in cervical disc replacement: a prospective multicenter clinical trial. Neurosurgery 57 : 759-763, 2005 https://doi.org/10.1227/01.NEU.0000175856.31210.58
  21. Lidar Z, Salame K : Minimally invasive posterior cervical discectomy for cervical radiculopathy: technique and clinical results. J Spinal Disord Tech 24 : 521-524, 2011
  22. McAfee PC, Cunningham BW, Devine J, Williams E, Yu-Yahiro J : Classification of heterotopic ossification (HO) in artificial disk replacement. J Spinal Disord Tech 16 : 384-389, 2003 https://doi.org/10.1097/00024720-200308000-00010
  23. Morpeth JF, Williams MF : Vocal fold paresis after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Laryngoscope 110 : 43-46, 2000 https://doi.org/10.1097/00005537-200001000-00009
  24. Park CK, Ryu KS, Lee KY, Lee HJ : Clinical outcome of lumbar total disc replacement using ProDisc-L in degenerative disc disease: minimum 5-year follow-up results at a single institute. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 37 : 672-677, 2012 https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31822ecd85
  25. Peng CW, Yue WM, Basit A, Guo CM, Tow BP, Chen JL, et al. : Intermediate results of the prestige LP cervical disc replacement: clinical and radiological analysis with minimum two-year follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 36 : E105-111, 2011 https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181d76f99
  26. Quan GM, Vital JM, Hansen S, Pointillart V : Eight-year clinical and radiological follow-up of the Bryan cervical disc arthroplasty. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 36 : 639-646, 2011 https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181dc9b51
  27. Rodrigues MA, Hanel RA, Prevedello DM, Antoniuk A, Araujo JC : Posterior approach for soft cervical disc herniation: a neglected technique? Surg Neurol 55 : 17-22; discussion 22, 2001 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-3019(00)00349-9
  28. Roh SW, Kim DH, Cardoso AC, Fessler RG : Endoscopic foraminotomy using MED system in cadaveric specimens. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 25 : 260-264, 2000 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200001150-00019
  29. Russell SM, Benjamin V : Posterior surgical approach to the cervical neural foramen for intervertebral disc disease. Neurosurgery 54 : 662-665, 2004 https://doi.org/10.1227/01.NEU.0000108781.07294.13
  30. Ryu KS, Park CK, Jun SC, Huh HY : Radiological changes of the operated and adjacent segments following cervical arthroplasty after a minimum 24-month follow-up: comparison between the Bryan and Prodisc-C devices. J Neurosurg Spine 13 : 299-307, 2010 https://doi.org/10.3171/2010.3.SPINE09445
  31. Stewart M, Johnston RA, Stewart I, Wilson JA : Swallowing performance following anterior cervical spine surgery. Br J Neurosurg 9 : 605-609, 1995 https://doi.org/10.1080/02688699550040882
  32. Yang CW, Fuh JL : C5 palsy after cervical spine decompression surgery. J Chin Med Assoc 76 : 363-364, 2013 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcma.2013.03.009
  33. Yi S, Lim JH, Choi KS, Sheen YC, Park HK, Jang IT : Comparison of anterior cervical foraminotomy vs arthroplasty for unilateral cervical radiculopathy. Surg Neurol 71 : 677-680; discussion 680, 2009 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surneu.2008.06.017
  34. Yi S, Shin DA, Kim KN, Choi G, Shin HC, Kim KS, et al. : The predisposing factors for the heterotopic ossification after cervical artificial disc replacement. Spine J 13 : 1048-1054, 2013 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2013.02.036

피인용 문헌

  1. Changes in cervical motion after cervical spinal motion preservation surgery vol.160, pp.2, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00701-017-3375-x
  2. Comparing the postoperative results of single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, cervical disc prosthesis and minimal invasive posterior cervical disc surgery vol.34, pp.6, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1080/02688697.2020.1716949