P63. Outpatient vs inpatient single-level cervical disc arthroplasty: An all-payer database analysis of 90-day complications and costs

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (9) ◽  
pp. S170
Author(s):  
Joseph Drain ◽  
Azeem T. Malik ◽  
Robert C. Ryu ◽  
Varun K. Singh ◽  
Elizabeth Yu ◽  
...  
2014 ◽  
Vol 21 (11) ◽  
pp. 1905-1908 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert W. Tracey ◽  
Daniel G. Kang ◽  
John P. Cody ◽  
Scott C. Wagner ◽  
Michael K. Rosner ◽  
...  

2011 ◽  
Vol 11 (10) ◽  
pp. S16 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter McCombe ◽  
Paul Mernagh ◽  
William Sears

2004 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 44-54 ◽  
Author(s):  
Denis J. DiAngelo ◽  
Kevin T. Foley ◽  
Brian R. Morrow ◽  
John S. Schwab ◽  
Jung Song ◽  
...  

An in vitro biomechanical study was conducted to compare the effects of disc arthroplasty and anterior cervical fusion on cervical spine biomechanics in a multilevel human cadaveric model. Three spine conditions were studied: harvested, single-level cervical disc arthroplasty, and single-level fusion. A programmable testing apparatus was used that replicated physiological flexion/extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation. Measurements included vertebral motion, applied load, and bending moments. Relative rotations at the superior, treated, and inferior motion segment units (MSUs) were normalized with respect to the overall rotation of those three MSUs and compared using a one-way analysis of variance with Student–Newman–Keuls test (p < 0.05). Simulated fusion decreased motion across the treated site relative to the harvested and disc arthroplasty conditions. The reduced motion at the treated site was compensated at the adjacent segments by an increase in motion. For all modes of testing, use of an artificial disc prosthesis did not alter the motion patterns at either the instrumented level or adjacent segments compared with the harvested condition, except in extension.


2007 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 198-209 ◽  
Author(s):  
Praveen V. Mummaneni ◽  
J. Kenneth Burkus ◽  
Regis W. Haid ◽  
Vincent C. Traynelis ◽  
Thomas A. Zdeblick

Object The authors report the results of a prospective randomized multicenter study in which the results of cervical disc arthroplasty were compared with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) in patients treated for symptomatic single-level cervical degenerative disc disease (DDD). Methods Five hundred forty-one patients with single-level cervical DDD and radiculopathy were enrolled at 32 sites and randomly assigned to one of two treatment groups: 276 patients in the investigational group underwent anterior cervical discectomy and decompression and arthroplasty with the PRESTIGE ST Cervical Disc System (Medtronic Sofamor Danek); 265 patients in the control group underwent decompressive ACDF. Eighty percent of the arthroplasty-treated patients (223 of 276) and 75% of the control patients (198 of 265) completed clinical and radiographic follow-up examinations at routine intervals for 2 years after surgery. Analysis of all currently available postoperative 12- and 24-month data indicated a two-point greater improvement in the neck disability index score in the investigational group than the control group. The arthroplasty group also had a statistically significant higher rate of neurological success (p = 0.005) as well as a lower rate of secondary revision surgeries (p = 0.0277) and supplemental fixation (p = 0.0031). The mean improvement in the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey Physical Component Summary scores was greater in the investigational group at 12 and 24 months, as was relief of neck pain. The patients in the investigational group returned to work 16 days sooner than those in the control group, and the rate of adjacent-segment reoperation was significantly lower in the investigational group as well (p = 0.0492, log-rank test). The cervical disc implant maintained segmental sagittal angular motion averaging more than 7°. In the investigational group, there were no cases of implant failure or migration. Conclusions The PRESTIGE ST Cervical Disc System maintained physiological segmental motion at 24 months after implantation and was associated with improved neurological success, improved clinical outcomes, and a reduced rate of secondary surgeries compared with ACDF.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document