English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The surgical treatment for cervical disc disease increased in the last decade using different surgical techniques. The percentage of the patients being surgically treated for three-level cervical disc disease remains small therefore the optimal surgical approach for these patients remains the subject of discussion. Multiple cervical disc arthroplasty, multilevel fusion, and hybrid procedures are among the options using the anterior approach. The aim of the study was to compare the multilevel cervical disc arthroplasty and multilevel fusion and compare clinical as well as the radiographic results in patients treated for three-level symptomatic cervical degenerative disc disease 2 years after the surgery.Methods   Overall, 23 patients with three-level symptomatic cervical degenerative disc disease were treated with complete anterior cervical discectomy and either with ProDisc-C disc arthroplasty or with fusion using Cervios chronoOS prostheses (ACDF) or standalone cervical cages. Overall 8 multilevel arthroplasty and 14 ACDF's procedures were performed. Clinical outcomes were assessed before and 12 and 24 months after the procedure using neurological examination, the neck disability index (NDI) and visual analogue scale (VAS) for neck and arm pain, with 15% improvement in NDI and 20% in VAS defined as clinically significant. Comparison between both groups (arthroplasty and fusion group) was based on clinical outcomes using neurological examination, VAS, NDI, and patient's satisfaction. Preoperative and postoperative ROMs (range of motion) were evaluated by measuring the lateral and flexion–extension radiographs.Results   Both groups had a statistically significant improvement in NDI and VAS for neck and arm pain ( p &lt; 0.05), 2 years after the surgery and the arthroplasty group had a slightly better improvement according to NDI (71.4% of patients in the arthroplasty group achieved ≥ 15% improvement in NDI and 67.5 of patients in ACDF group). The arthroplasty group showed faster recovery of C2 to C7 range of motion. There was a statistically significant difference in the C2 to C7 ROM between the two groups at 12 and 24 months postoperatively ( p &lt; 0.05). The ROM of the arthroplasty group approached the preoperative value at 12 months however it decreased again at 24 months.Conclusions   Disc arthroplasty can be an effective alternative in the surgical treatment for the multilevel cervical disc disease, preserving segmental motion after surgery and providing improvement in pain and functional outcome for the patients. The right surgical treatment for the three-level disc disease remains the subject of discussion and more long-term follow-up studies will be needed to determine the definitive treatment.

Multilevel Cervical Arthroplasty versus Multilevel Fusion in Three-Level Cervical Disc Disease (Clinical and Radiological Outcomes)