Is cervical disc arthroplasty good for congenital cervical stenosis?

Abstract

OBJECTIVECervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) has been demonstrated to be as safe and effective as anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) in the management of 1- and 2-level degenerative disc disease (DDD). However, there has been a lack of data to address the fundamental discrepancy between the two surgeries (CDA vs ACDF), and preservation versus elimination of motion, in the management of cervical myelopathy associated with congenital cervical stenosis (CCS). Although younger patients tend to benefit more from motion preservation, it is uncertain if CCS caused by multilevel DDD can be treated safely with CDA.METHODSConsecutive patients who underwent 3-level anterior cervical discectomy were retrospectively reviewed. Inclusion criteria were age less than 50 years, CCS (Pavlov ratio ≤ 0.82), symptomatic myelopathy correlated with DDD, and stenosis limited to 3 levels of the subaxial cervical (C3–7) spine. Exclusion criteria were ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament, previous posterior decompression surgery (e.g., laminoplasty or laminectomy), osteoporosis, previous trauma, or other rheumatic diseases that might have caused the cervical myelopathy. All these patients who underwent 3-level discectomy were divided into 2 groups according to the strategies of management: preservation or elimination of motion (the hybrid-CDA group and the ACDF group). The hybrid-CDA group underwent 2-level CDA plus 1-level ACDF, whereas the ACDF group underwent 3-level ACDF. Clinical assessment was measured by the visual analog scales (VAS) for neck and arm pain, Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores, and Nurick grades. Radiographic outcomes were measured using dynamic radiographs for evaluation of range of motion (ROM).RESULTSThirty-seven patients, with a mean (± SD) age of 44.57 ± 5.10 years, were included in the final analysis. There was a male predominance in this series (78.4%, 29 male patients), and the mean follow-up duration was 2.37 ± 1.60 years. There were 20 patients in the hybrid-CDA group, and 17 in the ACDF group. Both groups demonstrated similar clinical improvement at 2 years' follow-up. These patients with 3-level stenosis experienced significant improvement after either type of surgery (hybrid-CDA and ACDF). There were no significant differences between the 2 groups at each of the follow-up visits postoperatively. The preoperative ROM over the operated subaxial levels was similar between both groups (21.9° vs 21.67°; p = 0.94). Postoperatively, the hybrid-CDA group had significantly greater ROM (10.65° vs 2.19°; p < 0.001) than the ACDF group. Complications, adverse events, and reoperations in both groups were similarly low.CONCLUSIONSHybrid-CDA yielded similar clinical improvement to 3-level ACDF in patients with myelopathy caused by CCS. In this relatively young group of patients, hybrid-CDA demonstrated significantly more ROM than 3-level ACDF without adjacent-segment disease (ASD) at 2 years' follow-up. Therefore, hybrid-CDA appears to be an acceptable option in the management of CCS. The strategy of motion preservation yielded similar improvements of cervical myelopathy to motion elimination (i.e., ACDF) in patients with CCS, while the theoretical benefit of reducing ASD required further validation.