Retrospective Study
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2020. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.
World J Clin Cases. Jan 6, 2020; 8(1): 38-45
Published online Jan 6, 2020. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v8.i1.38
Application of a modified surgical position in anterior approach for total cervical artificial disc replacement
Wen-Xiu Hou, Hao-Xuan Zhang, Xia Wang, Hai-Ling Yang, Xiao-Rong Luan
Wen-Xiu Hou, Xia Wang, Xiao-Rong Luan, Third Ward of Orthopedics Department, Qilu Hospital, Shandong University, Jinan 250012, Shandong Province, China
Hao-Xuan Zhang, Department of Spine Surgery, Shandong Provincial Qianfoshan Hospital, The First Affiliated Hospital of Shandong First Medical University, Jinan 250014, Shandong Province, China
Hai-Ling Yang, Department of Nursing, Qilu Hospital, Shandong University, Jinan 250012, Shandong Province, China
ORCID number: Wen-Xiu Hou (0000-0002-1950-4730); Hao-Xuan Zhang (0000-0002-6313-2911); Xia Wang (0000-0003-2471-6946); Hai-Ling Yang (0000-0002-9905-8821); Xiao-Rong Luan (0000-0002-6313-2911).
Author contributions: Hou WX, Luan XR, and Zhang HX designed the research; Wang X and Yang HL performed the research; Hou WX and Luan XR wrote the paper.
Institutional review board statement: This study was reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee of Qilu Hospital, Shandong University.
Informed consent statement: Written informed consent was obtained from the patients.
Conflict-of-interest statement: No potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article are reported.
Data sharing statement: All the data in the current research are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Open-Access: This article is an open-access article which was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
Corresponding author: Xiao-Rong Luan, MNurs, PhD, Chief Nurse, Third Ward of Orthopedics Department, Qilu Hospital, Shandong University, Jinan 250012, Shandong Province, China. yuwu0305@126.com
Received: August 20, 2019
Peer-review started: August 20, 2019
First decision: September 9, 2019
Revised: October 15, 2019
Accepted: October 30, 2019
Article in press: October 30, 2019
Published online: January 6, 2020

Abstract
BACKGROUND

Total cervical artificial disc replacement (TDR) has been considered a safe and effective alternative surgical treatment for cervical spondylosis and degenerative disc disease that have failed to improve with conservative methods. Positioning the surgical patient is a critical part of the procedure. Appropriate patient positioning is crucial not only for the safety of the patient but also for optimizing surgical exposure, ensuring adequate and safe anesthesia, and allowing the surgeon to operate comfortably during lengthy procedures. The surgical posture is the traditional position used in anterior cervical approach; in general, patients are in a supine position with a pad under their shoulders and a ring-shaped pillow under their head.

AIM

To investigate the clinical outcomes of the use of a modified surgical position versus the traditional surgical position in anterior approach for TDR.

METHODS

In the modified position group, the patients had a soft pillow under their neck, and their jaw and both shoulders were fixed with wide tape. The analyzed data included intraoperative blood loss, position setting time, total operation time, and perioperative blood pressure and heart rate.

RESULTS

Blood pressure and heart rate were not significantly different before and after body positioning in both groups (P > 0.05). Compared with the traditional position group, the modified position group showed a statistically significantly longer position setting time (P < 0.05). However, the total operation time and intraoperative blood loss were significantly reduced in the modified position group compared with the traditional position group (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The clinical outcomes indicated that total operation time and intraoperative blood loss were relatively lower in the modified position group than in the traditional position group, thus reducing the risks of surgery while increasing the position setting time. The modified surgical position is a safe and effective method to be used in anterior approach for TDR surgery.

Key Words: Anterior approach, Surgical position, Total cervical artificial disc replacement, Cervical spondylosis

Core tip: This article was designed to investigate the clinical outcomes of the use of a modified surgical position versus the traditional surgical position in anterior approach for total cervical artificial disc replacement (TDR). The clinical outcomes indicated that total operation time and intraoperative blood loss were relatively lower in the modified position group than in the traditional position group, thus reducing the risks of surgery while increasing the position setting time. The modified surgical position is a safe and effective method to be used in anterior approach for TDR surgery.



INTRODUCTION

Artificial cervical disc prosthesis was designed by utilizing bionics technology, thus preserving the activity of the treated segment, and its design was first reported by Goffin et al[1] in 2002. Total cervical artificial disc replacement (TDR) has been considered a safe and effective alternative surgical treatment for cervical spondylosis and degenerative disc disease that have failed to improve with conservative methods[2-9].

Positioning the surgical patient is a critical part of the procedure. Appropriate patient positioning is crucial not only for the safety of the patient but also for optimizing surgical exposure, ensuring adequate and safe anesthesia, and allowing the surgeon to operate comfortably during lengthy procedures[10,11].

The surgical posture is the traditional position used in anterior cervical approach; in general, patients are in a supine position with a pad under their shoulders and a ring-shaped pillow under their head[12,13]. The activity of the adjacent segment accelerates the degeneration of the adjacent layers and causes new symptoms[8,14-17].

To enable an improved TDR procedure, shorten the time of operation, reduce the incidence of perioperative complications, and improve the safety of the procedure, we planned to improve the traditional surgical position in anterior cervical approach.

In this study, a total of 48 cervical spondylosis patients who were treated by TDR with either the traditional or the modified surgical position were assessed. We comprehensively determined the clinical outcomes, including the blood pressure and heart rate before and after body positioning, position setting time, total operation time, and intraoperative blood loss.

MATERIALS AND METHODS
Patients

All patients were initially assessed and treated by trained nurses before being enrolled in this study. Patients received a diagnosis of cervical spondylosis of one segmental level that was supported by clinical symptoms and imaging data and had poor clinical outcomes even after previously undergoing strict conservative treatment for at least three months.

Study design and parameters

Forty-eight patients were divided into a traditional position group and a modified position group, with 24 patients in each group (Table 1). Perioperative parameters were retrospectively analyzed.

Table 1 Demographic characteristics of the patients.
Modified group (n = 24)Traditional group (n = 24)P value
Male/Female16/812/120.439
Age (yr)46.7 (26-65)43.3 (25-61)0.998
Level of surgery0.551
C3/453
C4/51111
C5/6810

To assess the safety of the position setting process, blood pressure and heart rate were used, and these metrics were measured in all patients before and after the position setting process in both groups. In addition, the surgical position setting time was measured. After surgery, total operation time and intraoperative blood loss were recorded to evaluate the effects of surgical position on the safety of surgery.

Surgical position setting

Traditional position group: The traditional surgical position setting is shown in Figure 1A and B. After anesthesia intubation, the patient's head, neck, and shoulders were lifted, a shoulder pad was placed under the shoulders, and a ring-shaped pillow was placed under the head. Subsequently, the patient was positioned back on the table, and the height and position of the head, neck, and shoulder were checked until the neck was fully exposed.

Figure 1
Figure 1 Surgical position setting. The traditional position (A and B) and the modified position (C and D) are shown.

Modified position group: The modified surgical position setting is shown in Figure 1C and D. After anesthesia intubation, a shoulder pad and a ring-shaped pillow were placed under the shoulder and head, respectively. Then, a soft pillow with a height of approximately 10 cm was placed under the patient's neck. The lower jaw was pulled in the rostral direction, both shoulders were pulled in the caudal direction, and tape was used to maintain the position.

Statistical analysis

Data are presented as the mean ± SD. Statistical analyses were performed by the independent-samples t-test between two groups using SPSS (version 22.0, Chicago, IL), and categorical variables were analyzed by the Mann-Whitney U test. Differences of P < 0.05 were considered significant.

RESULTS
General patient information

All patients who underwent single-level Mobi-C artificial disc replacement from September 2014 to September 2015 were included (28 males and 20 females). The average age was 45.7 years (range, 25-65 years). Of the patients, 8 had C3-C4 replacement, 22 had C4-C5 replacement, and 18 had C5-C6 replacement.

There was no significant difference in sex, age, history, treated segment, anesthesia, or surgical staff between the two groups (P > 0.05).

Blood pressure and heart rate before and after body positioning

In the traditional position group, the blood pressure was 124.76 ± 15.3 mmHg before body positioning and 126.69 ± 18.7 mmHg after body positioning (Figure 2A). The average heart rate was 76.36 ± 14.2 bpm and 78.01 ± 13.8 bpm in the traditional position group before and after body posture, respectively (Figure 2B).

Figure 2
Figure 2 Patients’ blood pressure and heart rate before and after body positioning. A: Blood pressure before and after body positioning; B: Heart rate before and after body positioning. Each value is the mean ± SD.

In the modified position group, the blood pressure before body positioning was 128.43 ± 18.8 mmHg, and it was 129.33 ± 17.1 mmHg after body positioning (Figure 2A). The average heart rate was shown to be 82.61 ± 15.0 bpm and 83.25 ± 14.4 bpm in the modified position group before and after body posture, respectively (Figure 2B).

Blood pressure and heart rate before and after body positioning were not significantly different within each group or between the two groups (P > 0.05).

Surgical position setting time and total operation time

The surgical position setting time was 1.85 ± 0.49 min in the traditional position group, and it was 4.57 ± 0.67 min in the modified position group (Figure 3). A statistically significant increase was observed in the modified position group compared with the traditional position group (P < 0.05).

Figure 3
Figure 3 Position setting time and total operation time in the two groups. Each value is the mean ± SD. aP < 0.05, statistical significance was considered according to the independent-samples t-test.

The total operation time was significantly shorter in the modified position group (82.05 ± 12.4 min) than in the traditional position group (95.78 ± 14.5 min) (P < 0.05) (Figure 3).

Intraoperative blood loss

The intraoperative blood loss in the modified position group (20 ± 8.1 mL) was significantly lower than that in the traditional position group (27 ± 7.5 mL; P < 0.05) (Figure 4).

Figure 4
Figure 4 Intraoperative blood losses in the two groups. Intraoperative blood loss. Each value is the mean ± SD. aP < 0.05, statistical significance was considered according to the independent-samples t-test.
DISCUSSION

Artificial cervical disc prosthesis was designed to reconstruct or maintain the height of the intervertebral disc, maintain the regular activity of the cervical spine, and create favorable conditions for the recovery of function of the spinal cord after the spinal cord compression was removed[4,18-20].

An appropriate surgical position is crucial for the operation. Improvement in the patient's surgical status facilitates the surgeon’s procedure and reduces the amount of bleeding and the incidence of complications, thus creating essential conditions for successful implementation of the disc and recovery of the patient[10,11].

In this study, 48 cases of cervical disc replacement with Mobi-C prosthesis were included. Compared with patients in the traditional surgical position, patients in the modified surgical position had more satisfactory clinical outcomes, and the advantages are as follows.

To facilitate the operation and select the appropriate type of prosthesis in TDR, the patient is typically placed in the supine-neutral surgical position to maintain the natural curve of the cervical spine[8,21-27]. Because only the shoulder pad and ring-shaped pillow were placed under the shoulders and head, respectively, the neck of the patient was not supported in the traditional surgical position during anterior cervical approach. However, in the modified position, the shoulder pad and ring-shaped pillow were placed under the shoulders and head, respectively, and a soft pillow with a height of approximately 10 cm was placed under the patient's neck so that the patient was in the supine-neutral surgical position during the surgery.

Patients with the modified surgical position are fixed firmly and securely

During a cervical surgical procedure, slight activity of the patient can have serious consequences, including cervical displacement and injuries of the blood vessels and the spinal cord[15,23,28-32]. In the modified position, the lower jaw and both shoulders were pulled in the rostral and the caudal directions, respectively, and wide tape was used for auxiliary fixation. Thus, the cervical spine and other parts of the patient were securely fixed, allowing a successful surgery and guaranteeing the safety of the patients.

Reduced total operative time and intraoperative blood loss

The total operation time was significantly shorter in the modified position group than in the traditional position group. Intraoperative blood loss in the modified position group was significantly lower than that in the traditional position group.

The modified surgical position needs more surgical position setting time. However, the total operation time was shortened, and intraoperative blood loss was reduced in patients with the modified surgical position compared with patients with the traditional position. A shorter operation time results in a lower operation risk, and a smaller amount of bleeding during the operation can not only help the surgeon's activity but also reduce the risk of injury in patients, which is beneficial to the healing process.

In this study, the modified surgical position in anterior approach was successfully designed for TDR. The results indicated that the modified surgical position had no adverse effects on the blood pressure and heart rate of the patient. The modified surgical position reduces the total operation time and intraoperative blood loss, although it consumes more surgical position setting time; these results suggest that the modified position is beneficial to the operation of the surgeons, and it is worthy of application and widespread use in TDR.

ARTICLE HIGHLIGHTS
Research background

Total cervical artificial disc replacement (TDR) has been considered a safe and effective alternative surgical treatment for cervical spondylosis and degenerative disc disease that have failed to improve with conservative methods.

Research motivation

Positioning the surgical patient is a critical part of the procedure. Appropriate patient positioning is crucial not only for the safety of the patient but also for optimizing surgical exposure, ensuring adequate and safe anesthesia, and allowing the surgeon to operate comfortably during lengthy procedures. The surgical posture is the traditional position used in anterior cervical approach; in general, patients are in a supine position with a pad under their shoulders and a ring-shaped pillow under their head. The activity of the adjacent segment accelerates the degeneration of the adjacent layers and causes new symptoms.

Research objectives

To investigate the clinical outcomes of the use of a modified surgical position versus the traditional surgical position in anterior approach for TDR.

Research methods

In the modified position group, patients had a soft pillow under their neck, and their jaw and both shoulders were fixed with wide tape. The analyzed data included intraoperative blood loss, position setting time, total operation time, and perioperative blood pressure and heart rate.

Research results

Blood pressure and heart rate were not significantly different before and after body positioning in both groups. Compared with the traditional position group, the modified position group showed a statistically significantly longer position setting time. However, the total operation time and intraoperative blood loss were significantly reduced in the modified position group compared with the traditional position group.

Research conclusions

The clinical outcomes indicated that total operation time and intraoperative blood loss were lower in the modified position group than in the traditional position group, thus reducing the risks of surgery while increasing the position setting time.

Research perspectives

The modified surgical position is a safe and effective method to be used in anterior approach for TDR surgery.

Footnotes

Manuscript source: Unsolicited manuscript

Specialty type: Medicine, Research and Experimental

Country of origin: China

Peer-review report classification

Grade A (Excellent): 0

Grade B (Very good): B, B

Grade C (Good): C

Grade D (Fair): 0

Grade E (Poor): 0

P-Reviewer: Kressel A, Kositamongkol P, Fires D S-Editor: Wang JL L-Editor: Wang TQ E-Editor: Liu JH

References
1.  Goffin J, Casey A, Kehr P, Liebig K, Lind B, Logroscino C, Pointillart V, Van Calenbergh F, van Loon J. Preliminary clinical experience with the Bryan Cervical Disc Prosthesis. Neurosurgery. 2002;51:840-5; discussion 845-7.  [PubMed]  [DOI]
2.  Findlay C, Ayis S, Demetriades AK. Total disc replacement versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a systematic review with meta-analysis of data from a total of 3160 patients across 14 randomized controlled trials with both short- and medium- to long-term outcomes. Bone Joint J. 2018;100-B:991-1001.  [PubMed]  [DOI]
3.  Verma K, Gandhi SD, Maltenfort M, Albert TJ, Hilibrand AS, Vaccaro AR, Radcliff KE. Rate of adjacent segment disease in cervical disc arthroplasty versus single-level fusion: meta-analysis of prospective studies. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013;38:2253-2257.  [PubMed]  [DOI]
4.  Duggal N, Pickett GE, Mitsis DK, Keller JL. Early clinical and biomechanical results following cervical arthroplasty. Neurosurg Focus. 2004;17:E9.  [PubMed]  [DOI]
5.  Di Martino A, Papalia R, Albo E, Cortesi L, Denaro L, Denaro V. Cervical spine alignment in disc arthroplasty: should we change our perspective? Eur Spine J. 2015;24 Suppl 7:810-825.  [PubMed]  [DOI]
6.  Badve SA, Kurra S, Nunley PD, Lavelle WF. The Mobi-C® cervical disc and other devices for two-level disc replacement: overview of its safety and efficacy. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2019;16:307-315.  [PubMed]  [DOI]
7.  Botelho RV. Preliminary clinical experience with the Bryan cervical disc prosthesis. Neurosurgery. 2003;53:785; author reply 785-785; author reply 786.  [PubMed]  [DOI]
8.  Xu B, Ma JX, Tian JH, Ge L, Ma XL. Indirect meta-analysis comparing clinical outcomes of total cervical disc replacements with fusions for cervical degenerative disc disease. Sci Rep. 2017;7:1740.  [PubMed]  [DOI]
9.  Yang SD, Zhu YB, Yan SZ, Di J, Yang DL, Ding WY. Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion surgery versus total disc replacement: A comparative study with minimum of 10-year follow-up. Sci Rep. 2017;7:16443.  [PubMed]  [DOI]
10.  Burlingame BL. Guideline Implementation: Positioning the Patient. AORN J. 2017;106:227-237.  [PubMed]  [DOI]
11.  Obeid I, Boissière L, Yilgor C, Larrieu D, Pellisé F, Alanay A, Acaroglu E, Perez-Grueso FJ, Kleinstück F, Vital JM, Bourghli A; European Spine Study Group, ESSG. Global tilt: a single parameter incorporating spinal and pelvic sagittal parameters and least affected by patient positioning. Eur Spine J. 2016;25:3644-3649.  [PubMed]  [DOI]
12.  Linhares D, Lobo J, Pinto R, Neves N. Atypical presentation of a cervical synovial cyst. Eur Spine J. 2017;26:2267-2271.  [PubMed]  [DOI]
13.  Cornett CA, Kang JD, Lee JY, Devin CJ, Gannon E, Kim E, Esmende SM. Surgical Management of Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy. Instr Course Lect. 2017;66:329-351.  [PubMed]  [DOI]
14.  Park CK, Ryu KS. Are Controversial Issues in Cervical Total Disc Replacement Resolved or Unresolved?: A Review of Literature and Recent Updates. Asian Spine J. 2018;12:178-192.  [PubMed]  [DOI]
15.  Kim CH, Park TH, Chung CK, Kim KT, Choi YH, Chung SW. Changes in cervical motion after cervical spinal motion preservation surgery. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2018;160:397-404.  [PubMed]  [DOI]
16.  Wiedenhöfer B, Nacke J, Stephan M, Richter W, Carstens C, Eichler M. Is Total Disk Replacement a Cost-effective Treatment for Cervical Degenerative Disk Disease? Clin Spine Surg. 2017;30:E530-E534.  [PubMed]  [DOI]
17.  Heo DH, Lee DC, Oh JY, Park CK. Bone loss of vertebral bodies at the operative segment after cervical arthroplasty: a potential complication? Neurosurg Focus. 2017;42:E7.  [PubMed]  [DOI]
18.  Jackson RJ, Davis RJ, Hoffman GA, Bae HW, Hisey MS, Kim KD, Gaede SE, Nunley PD. Subsequent surgery rates after cervical total disc replacement using a Mobi-C Cervical Disc Prosthesis versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a prospective randomized clinical trial with 5-year follow-up. J Neurosurg Spine. 2016;24:734-745.  [PubMed]  [DOI]
19.  Daentzer D, Welke B, Hurschler C, Husmann N, Jansen C, Flamme CH, Richter BI. In vitro-analysis of kinematics and intradiscal pressures in cervical arthroplasty versus fusion--A biomechanical study in a sheep model with two semi-constrained prosthesis. Biomed Eng Online. 2015;14:27.  [PubMed]  [DOI]
20.  Hisey MS, Bae HW, Davis RJ, Gaede S, Hoffman G, Kim KD, Nunley PD, Peterson D, Rashbaum RF, Stokes J, Ohnmeiss DD. Prospective, Randomized Comparison of Cervical Total Disk Replacement Versus Anterior Cervical Fusion: Results at 48 Months Follow-up. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2015;28:E237-E243.  [PubMed]  [DOI]
21.  Siskey R, Peck J, Mehta H, Kosydar A, Kurtz S, Hill G. Development of a clinically relevant impingement test method for a mobile bearing lumbar total disc replacement. Spine J. 2016;16:1133-1142.  [PubMed]  [DOI]
22.  Esmende SM, Daniels AH, Paller DJ, Koruprolu S, Palumbo MA, Crisco JJ. Cervical total disc replacement exhibits similar stiffness to intact cervical functional spinal units tested on a dynamic pendulum testing system. Spine J. 2015;15:162-167.  [PubMed]  [DOI]
23.  Kim JS, Dowdell J, Cheung ZB, Arvind V, Sun L, Jandhyala C, Ukogu C, Ranson W, Jacobs S, McAnany S, Cho SK. The Seven-Year Cost-Effectiveness of Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Versus Cervical Disc Arthroplasty: A Markov Analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2018;43:1543-1551.  [PubMed]  [DOI]
24.  Lavelle WF, Riew KD, Levi AD, Florman JE. Ten-year Outcomes of Cervical Disc Replacement With the BRYAN Cervical Disc: Results From a Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2019;44:601-608.  [PubMed]  [DOI]
25.  Segal DN, Wilson JM, Staley C, Yoon ST. Outpatient and Inpatient Single-level Cervical Total Disc Replacement: A Comparison of 30-day Outcomes. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2019;44:79-83.  [PubMed]  [DOI]
26.  Chin KR, Pencle FJR, Seale JA, Pencle FK. Clinical Outcomes of Outpatient Cervical Total Disc Replacement Compared With Outpatient Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2017;42:E567-E574.  [PubMed]  [DOI]
27.  Chin KR, Pencle FJR, Benny A, Seale JA. Placing ball and socket cervical total disc replacement using instant center of rotation. J Orthop. 2019;16:390-392.  [PubMed]  [DOI]
28.  Kim SW, Paik SH, Oh JK, Kwak YH, Lee HW, You KH. The impact of coronal alignment of device on radiographic degeneration in the case of total disc replacement. Spine J. 2016;16:470-479.  [PubMed]  [DOI]
29.  Lanman TH, Burkus JK, Dryer RG, Gornet MF, McConnell J, Hodges SD. Long-term clinical and radiographic outcomes of the Prestige LP artificial cervical disc replacement at 2 levels: results from a prospective randomized controlled clinical trial. J Neurosurg Spine. 2017;27:7-19.  [PubMed]  [DOI]
30.  Loumeau TP, Darden BV, Kesman TJ, Odum SM, Van Doren BA, Laxer EB, Murrey DB. A RCT comparing 7-year clinical outcomes of one level symptomatic cervical disc disease (SCDD) following ProDisc-C total disc arthroplasty (TDA) versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). Eur Spine J. 2016;25:2263-2270.  [PubMed]  [DOI]
31.  Chin KR, Lubinski JR, Zimmers KB, Sands BE, Pencle F. Clinical experience and two-year follow-up with a one-piece viscoelastic cervical total disc replacement. J Spine Surg. 2017;3:630-640.  [PubMed]  [DOI]
32.  Tasiou A, Giannis T, Brotis AG, Siasios I, Georgiadis I, Gatos H, Tsianaka E, Vagkopoulos K, Paterakis K, Fountas KN. Anterior cervical spine surgery-associated complications in a retrospective case-control study. J Spine Surg. 2017;3:444-459.  [PubMed]  [DOI]