Yonsei Med J.  2007 Jun;48(3):457-464. 10.3349/ymj.2007.48.3.457.

Early Clinical Experience with the Mobi-C Disc Prosthesis

• Kim SH
• Shin HC
• Shin DA
• Kim KN
• Yoon DH

• KMID: 724101
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3349/ymj.2007.48.3.457

Abstract

PURPOSE
We have experienced 23 patients who had underwent cervical disc replacement with Mobi-C disc prosthesis and analyzed their radiological results to evaluate its efficacy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study was performed on 23 patients with degenerative cervical disc disease who underwent CDR with Mobi-C disc prosthesis from March 2006 to June 2006. RESULTS: The age of the study population ranged from 31 to 62 years with mean of 43 years, and 16 male and 7 female cases. Regarding axial pain, the average preoperative VAS score was 6.47 +/- 1.4, while at final follow-up it was 1.4 +/- 0.7 (p < 0.001). The preoperatively VAS score for radiculopathy was 6.7 +/- 0.7 compared with an average score of 0 +/- 0 at the final follow-up (p < 0.001). At postoperative 6th month, Odom's criteria were excellent, good, or fair for all 23 patients (100%). 7 patients (30.4%) were classified as excellent, 15 patients (65.2%) as good, and 1 patients (4.4%) as fair. Prolo economic and functional rating scale was average 8.9 +/- 0.7 at postoperative 6th month. ROM in C2-7, ROM of FSU, and ROM in upper adjacent level were well preserved after CDR. CONSLUSION: This report would be the first document about the CDR with Mobi-C disc prosthesis in the treatment of degenerative cervical disc disease. CDR with Mobi-C disc prosthesis provided a favorable clinical and radiological outcome in this study. However, Long-term follow-up studies are required to prove its efficacy and ability to prevent adjacent segment disease.

Keyword

Cervical; arthroplasty; Mobi-C disc prosthesis

MeSH Terms

Adult
Cervical Vertebrae/physiopathology/*surgery
Diskectomy/adverse effects/instrumentation/*methods
Female
Humans
Joint Prosthesis/adverse effects
Male
Middle Aged
Postoperative Complications/prevention & control
Range of Motion, Articular
Time Factors
Treatment Outcome

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 Mobi-C disc prosthesis.

• 

  Fig. 2 ROM of the functional spinal unit (FSU) and C2-7. (A) ROM of the FSU was calculated using dynamic lateral radiographs and quantitative measurement software. (B) The ROM of the cervical spine was defined as the difference in the Cobb's angle between full flexion and extension as shown in lateral radiographs.

• 

  Fig. 3 Radiculopathy decreased to normal in 6 months. Axial pain decreased, but mild axial pain remained.

• 

  Fig. 4 Neutral C2-7 Cobb's and Neutral FSU angles were well preserved during the 6 months of follow-up after CDR with Mobi-C disc prostheses.

• 

  Fig. 5 ROM in C2-7 decreased abruptly after CDR with Mobi-C disc prostheses but returned to preoperative ROM at 6 months. FSU ROM decreased after CDR with Mobi-C disc prostheses but returned to preoperative ROM in 1 month. The restored ROM persisted to the 6th month follow-up.

• 

  Fig. 6 ROM of adjacent segments decreased right after CDR. These vertebrae show hypermobility at 3 months and preoperative ROM at 6 months. ROM did not increase beyond preoperative ROM.

• 

  Fig. 7 The ROM of shell gradually increased and reached to normal ROM 6 months after surgery.

Reference

1. Yoon DH, Yi S, Shin HC, Kim KN, Kim SH. Clinical and radiological results following cervical arthroplasty. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2006. 148:943–950.

2. Hilibrand AS, Robbins M. Adjacent segment degeneration and adjacent segment disease: the consequences of spinal fusion? Spine J. 2004. 4(6 Suppl):190S–194S.

3. Hilibrand AS, Carlson GD, Palumbo MA, Jones PK, Bohlman HH. Radiculopathy and myelopathy at segments adjacent to the site of a previous anterior cervical arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1999. 81:519–528.

4. Robertson JT, Papadopoulos SM, Traynelis VC. Assessment of adjacent-segment disease in patients treated with cervical fusion or arthroplasty: a prospective 2-year study. J Neurosurg Spine. 2005. 3:417–423.

5. Hilibrand AS, Yoo JU, Carlson GD, Bohlman HH. The success of anterior cervical arthrodesis adjacent to a previous fusion. Spine. 1997. 22:1574–1579.

6. Goffin J, Casey A, Kehr P, Liebig K, Lind B, Logroscino C, et al. Preliminary clinical experience with the Bryan Cervical Disc Prosthesis. Neurosurgery. 2002. 51:840–847.

7. Durbhakula MM, Ghiselli G. Cervical total disc replacement, part I: rationale, biomechanics, and implant types. Orthop Clin North Am. 2005. 36:349–354.

8. Duggal N, Pickett GE, Mitsis DK, Keller JL. Early clinical and biomechanical results following cervical arthroplasty. Neurosurg Focus. 2004. 17:E9.

9. Wang Y, Xiao SH, Lu N, Zhang XS. Clinical report of cervical arthroplasty in management of spondylotic myelopathy. Zhonghua Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2004. 42:1333–1337.

10. Tian W, Liu B, Li Q, Hu L, Li ZY, Yuan Q, et al. Early clinical outcome of cervical artificial disc replacement. Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2005. 85:37–40.

11. Sekhon LH. Cervical arthroplasty in the management of spondylotic myelopathy: 18-month results. Neurosurg Focus. 2004. 17:E8.

12. Dmitriev AE, Cunningham BW, Hu N, Sell G, Vigna F, McAfee PC. Adjacent level intradiscal pressure and segmental kinematics following a cervical total disc arthroplasty: an in vitro human cadaveric model. Spine. 2005. 30:1165–1172.

13. Anderson PA, Sasso RC, Rouleau JP, Carlson CS, Goffin J. The Bryan Cervical Disc: wear properties and early clinical results. Spine J. 2004. 4(6 Suppl):303S–309S.

14. Bertagnoli R, Duggal N, Pickett GE, Wigfield CC, Gill SS, Karg A, et al. Cervical total disc replacement, part two: clinical results. Orthop Clin North Am. 2005. 36:355–362.

15. Pickett GE, Mitsis DK, Sekhon LH, Sears WR, Duggal N. Effects of a cervical disc prosthesis on segmental and cervical spine alignment. Neurosurg Focus. 2004. 17:E5.

16. Johnson JP, Lauryssen C, Cambron HO, Pashman R, Regan JJ, Anand N, et al. Sagittal alignment and the Bryan cervical artificial disc. Neurosurg Focus. 2004. 17:E14.

17. Vernon H, Mior S. The Neck Disability Index: a study of reliability and validity. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1991. 14:409–415.

18. Prolo DJ, Oklund SA, Butcher M. Toward uniformity in evaluating results of lumbar spine operations. A paradigm applied to posterior lumbar interbody fusions. Spine. 1986. 11:601–606.

19. Goffin J, van Loon J, Van Calenbergh F, Plets C. Long- term results after anterior cervical fusion and osteosynthetic stabilization for fractures and/or dislocations of the cervical spine. J Spinal Disord. 1995. 8:499–508.

20. Gore DR, Gardner GM, Sepic SB. Roentgenographic findings following anterior cervical fusion. Skeletal Radiol. 1986. 15:556–559.

21. Baba H, Furusawa N, Imura S, Kawahara N, Tsuchiya H, Tomita K. Late radiographic findings after anterior cervical fusion for spondylotic myeloradiculopathy. Spine. 1993. 18:2167–2173.