Abstract
Introduction:
Cervical disc replacement (cTDR) is a popular treatment for cervical degenerative disc disease. While some devices have shown promising results in the early and midterm, long term results remain lacking. This study reports on patient outcomes at long term follow up for the Activ C@ prosthesis.
Materials and Methods:
Between 2007 and 2009, patients who underwent cTDR for cervical degenerative disc disease at a NHS district general hospital were included. All were assessed preoperatively and at 6, 12, 24 and 105 months after procedure with visual analogue score (VAS) for neck and arm pain severity and frequency, Neck Disability Index questionnaire (NDI) and Centre for Epidemiologic Studies Depression questionnaire (CES-D). We calculated the survival rate of implants (Kaplan- Meir curve) [end point of reoperation at same or adjacent level] and compared patient outcomes (paired t test; MedCalc@).
Results:
We had treated 72 patients (25 men, 47 women) with cTDR (61 radiculopathy and 11 myelopathy symptoms) with average age of 52.2 years. We were able to interview 47 patients (65% follow up rate) at long term follow up (average 105 month). VAS (mean) for neck pain improved from 6 to 2 at 12 and 24 months and comparable at 105 months (VAS =3) [p < 0.006] . Arm pain (mean VAS) showed periodic improvement 7 to 5 (12 months); VAS 4 (24 months) and significantly better at 105 months (VAS = 3) [p < 0.006]. NDIQ (average) improved from 51 to 30 at 12 months, 35 at 24 months and 26 at 105 months (p < 0.0001). CES-D scores improved from 20 to 13 at 12 months, 18 at 24 months and 14 at 105 months (p < 0.0001). In the smaller subgroup that underwent cTDR for myelopathy, 10 patients were followed up to 2 years but only 2 reviewed long term (7 lost to follow up, 1 dead). However, these patients only maintained improvement in arm pain seen at 2 year follow up [VAS (preop: 24 m:105 m) = 6:4:3] and neck pain was worse [VAS (preop: 24 m:105 m) = 6:2:6]. There was deterioration in NDIQ and CESD scores seen in early follow up period, NDIQ (preop: 24 m:105 m) 51: 35: 57 and CES -D (pre, post op 2y, follow up 8y) = 20:18:17. There were no adverse events recorded at the time of procedure. There were no revisions performed at the same level, 3 patients had further adjacent level cTDR(2 at 2 years, 1 at 9 years) and median survival time was 8.62 years (7.22 to 10.05 95% CI).
Conclusion:
Cervical TDR improves pain and function in patients with cervical degenerative disc disease both in the early and long term. We are able to report a survival time of 8.6 years with the Activ C@ prosthesis with no revision surgery performed at the same level. However, the long term benefit of cTDR performed for myelopathy is not clear.