Advertisement

Evidence-based use of arthroplasty in cervical degenerative disc disease

  • Andrei F. Joaquim
  • Melvin C. Makhni
  • K. Daniel Riew
Review Article
  • 20 Downloads

Abstract

Introduction

Cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) was developed to decrease the rate of symptomatic adjacent-level disease while preserving motion in the cervical spine.

Methods

The objectives of this paper are to provide criteria for proper patient selection as well as to present a comprehensive literature review of the current evidence for CDA, including randomized studies, the most recent meta-analysis findings, and long-term follow-up clinical trials as well.

Results

Currently, there are several prospective randomized controlled studies of level I of evidence attesting to the safety and efficacy of CDA in the management of cervical spondylotic disease (CSD) for one- or two-level degenerative diseases. These as well as recent meta-analyses suggest that CDA is potentially similar or even superior to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) when considering several outcomes, including dysphagia and re-operation rate over medium-term follow-up. Less robust studies have also reported satisfactory clinical and radiological outcomes of CDA for hybrid procedures (ACDF combined with CDA), non-contiguous disease, and even for multilevel disease (more than 2 levels).

Conclusions

Based on this evidence we conclude that CDA is a safe and effective alternative to ACDF in properly selected patients for one- or two-level diseases. Defining superiority of specific implants and detailing optimal surgical indications will require further well-designed long-term studies.

Keywords

Spondylotic cervical disease Cervical arthroplasty Anterior cervical approaches Anterior surgery Discectomy Arthroplasty 

Notes

References

  1. 1.
    Smith GW, Robinson RA (1958) The treatment of certain cervical-spine disorders by anterior removal of the 3 intervertebral disc and interbody fusion. J Bone Joint Surg Am 40-A:607–624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Nanda A, Sharma M, Sonig A, Ambekar S, Bollam P (2014) Surgical complications of anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion for cervical degenerative disk disease: a single surgeon’s experience of 1576 patients. World Neurosurg 82(6):1380–1387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jacobs W, Willems PC, Kruyt M, van Limbeek J, Pavlov P, Bartels R et al (2011) Systematic review of anterior interbody fusion techniques for single- and double-level cervical degenerative disc disease. Spine 36(14):E950–E960CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Luo J, Wang H, Peng J, Deng Z, Zhang Z, Liu S et al (2018) Rate of adjacent segment degeneration of cervical disc arthroplasty versus fusion meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. World Neurosurg 113:225–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nunley PD, Coric D, Frank KA, Stone MB (2018) Cervical disc arthroplasty: current evidence and real-world application. NeurosurgeryGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mummaneni PV, Burkus JK, Haid RW, Traynelis VC, Zdeblick TA (2007) Clinical and radiographic analysis of cervical disc arthroplasty compared with allograft fusion: a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Neurosurg Spine 6(3):198–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Murrey D, Janssen M, Delamarter R et al (2009) Results of the prospective, randomized, controlled multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study of the ProDisc-C total disc replacement versus anterior discectomy and fusion for the treatment of 1-level symptomatic cervical disc disease. Spine J 9(4):275–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Heller JG, Sasso RC, Papadopoulos SM et al (2009) Comparison of BRYAN cervical disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical decompression and fusion: clinical and radiographic results of a randomized, controlled, clinical trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34(2):101–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Burkus JK, Haid RW, Traynelis VC, Mummaneni PV (2010) Long-term clinical and radiographic outcomes of cervical disc replacement with the Prestige disc: results from a prospective randomized controlled clinical trial. J Neurosurg Spine 13(3):308–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Delamarter RB, Murrey D, Janssen ME et al (2010) Results at 24 months from the prospective, randomized, multicenter Investigational Device Exemption trial of ProDisc-C versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with 4-year follow-up and continued access patients. SAS J 4(4):122–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Coric D, Nunley PD, Guyer RD et al (2011) Prospective, randomized, multicenter study of cervical arthroplasty: 269 patients from the Kineflex|C artificial disc investigational device exemption study with a minimum 2-year follow-up: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 15(4):348–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sasso RC, Anderson PA, Riew KD, Heller JG (2011) Results of cervical arthroplasty compared with anterior discectomy and fusion: four-year clinical outcomes in a prospective, randomized controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am 93-A(18):1684–1692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Phillips FM, Lee JY, Geisler FH et al (2013) A prospective, randomized, controlled clinical investigation comparing PCM cervical disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. 2-year results from the US FDA IDE clinical trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 38(15):E907–E918CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Vaccaro A, Beutler W, Peppelman W et al (2013) Clinical outcomes with selectively constrained SECURE-C cervical disc arthroplasty: two-year results from a prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter investigational device exemption study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 38(26):2227–2239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zigler JE, Delamarter R, Murrey D, Spivak J, Janssen M (2013) ProDisc-C and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion as surgical treatment for singlelevel cervical symptomatic degenerative disc disease. Spine 38(3):203–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Burkus JK, Traynelis VC, Haid RW, Mummaneni PV (2014) Clinical and radiographic analysis of an artificial cervical disc: 7-year follow-up from the Prestige prospective randomized controlled clinical trial: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 21(4):516–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hisey MS, Bae HW, Davis R, et al (2014) Multi-center, prospective, randomized, controlled investigational device exemption clinical trial comparing Mobi-C Cervical Artificial Disc to anterior discectomy and fusion in the treatment of symptomatic degenerative disc disease in the cervical spine. Int J Spine Surg 8Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Janssen ME, Zigler JE, Spivak JM, Delamarter RB, Darden BV, Kopjar B (2015) ProDisc-C total disc replacement versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for single-level symptomatic cervical disc disease. J Bone Joint Surg 97(21):1738–1747CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Phillips FM, Geisler FH, Gilder KM, Reah C, Howell KM, Mcafee PC (2015) Long term outcomes of the US FDA IDE prospective, randomized controlled clinical trial comparing PCM cervical disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Spine 40(10):674–683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gornet MF, Burkus JK, Shaffrey ME, Argires PJ, Nian H, Harrell FE (2015) Cervical disc arthroplasty with PRESTIGE LP disc versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a prospective, multicenter investigational device exemption study. J Neurosurg Spine 23(5):558–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hisey MS, Bae HW, Davis RJ et al (2015) Prospective, randomized comparison of cervical total disk replacement versus anterior cervical fusion. J Spinal Disord Tech 28(4):E237–E243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hisey M, Zigler J, Jackson R et al (2016) Prospective, randomized comparison of one-level Mobi-C cervical total disc replacement vs. anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: results at 5-year follow-up. Int J Spine Surg 10:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gornet M, Burkus JK, Shaffrey M, Nian H, Harrell F (2016) Cervical disc arthroplasty with prestige LP disc versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: seven-year outcomes. Int J Spine Surg 10:1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Janssen ME, Zigler JE, Spivak JM, Delamarter RB, Darden BV 2nd, Kopjar B (2015) ProDisc-C total disc replacement versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for single-level symptomatic cervical disc disease: seven-year follow-up of the prospective randomized U.S. Food and Drug Administration Investigational Device Exemption Study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 97(21):1738–1747CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ghobrial GM, Lavelle WF, Florman JE, Riew KD, Levi AD (2018) Symptomatic adjacent level disease requiring surgery: analysis of 10-year results from a prospective, randomized, clinical trial comparing cervical disc arthroplasty to anterior cervical fusion. NeurosurgeryGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Davis RJ, Kim KD, Hisey MS et al (2013) Cervical total disc replacement with the Mobi-C cervical artificial disc compared with anterior discectomy and fusion for treatment of 2-level symptomatic degenerative disc disease: a prospective, randomized, controlled multicenter clinical trial: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 19(5):532–545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Davis R, Nunley PD, Kim K et al (2014) Two-level total disc replacement with Mobi-C(r) over 3-years. Coluna/Columna 12(2):97–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Davis RJ, Nunley PD, Kim KD et al (2015) Two-level total disc replacement with Mobi-C cervical artificial disc versus anterior discectomy and fusion: a prospective, randomized, controlled multicenter clinical trial with 4-year follow up results. J Neurosurg Spine 22(1):15–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Radcliff K, Coric D, Albert T (2016) Five-year clinical results of cervical total disc replacement compared with anterior discectomy and fusion for treatment of 2-level symptomatic degenerative disc disease: a prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter investigational device exemption clinical trial. J Neurosurg Spine 25(2):213–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Gornet MF, Lanman TH, Burkus JK et al (2017) Cervical disc arthroplasty with the Prestige LP disc versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, at 2 levels: results of a prospective, multicenter randomized controlled clinical trial at 24 months. J Neurosurg Spine 26(6):653–667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lanman TH, Burkus JK, Dryer RG, Gornet MF, McConnell J, Hodges SD (2017) 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 27(1):7–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lanman TH, Burkus JK, Dryer RG, Gornet MF, McConnell J, Hodges SD (2017) Long term clinical and radiographic outcomes of the Prestige LP artificial cervical discreplacement at 2 levels: results from a prospective randomized controlled clinical trial. J Neurosurg Spine 27(1):7–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sekhon LH, Sears W, Duggal N (2005) Cervical arthroplasty after previous surgery: results of treating 24 discs in 15 patients. J Neurosurg Spine 3:335–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Huppert J, Beaurain J, Steib JP, Bernard P, Dufour T, Hovorka I et al (2011) Comparison between single- and multi-level patients: clinical and radiological outcomes 2 years after cervical disc replacement. Eur Spine J 20:1417–1426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kim HK, Kim MH, Cho DS, Kim SH (2009) Surgical outcome of cervical arthroplasty using Bryan®. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 46:532–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Luo J, Wang H, Peng J, Deng Z, Zhang Z, Liu S, Wang D, Gong M, Tang S (2018) Rate of adjacent segment degeneration of cervical disc arthroplasty versus fusion meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. World Neurosurg 13:225–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Dong L, Xu Z, Chen X, Wang D, Li D, Liu T, Hao D (2017) The change of adjacent segment after cervical disc arthroplasty compared with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Spine J 17(10):1549–1558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Zhu Y, Zhang B, Liu H, Wu Y, Zhu Q (2016) Cervical disc arthroplasty versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for incidence of symptomatic adjacent segment disease: a meta-analysis of prospective randomized controlled trials. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 41(19):1493–1502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Zhao H, Duan LJ, Gao YS, Yang YD, Tang XS, Zhao DY, Xiong Y, Hu ZG, Li CH, Yu X (2018) What is the superior surgical strategy for bi-level cervical spondylosis-anterior cervical disc replacement or anterior cervical decompression and fusion?: a meta-analysis from 11 studies. Medicine (Baltimore) 97(13):e0005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Rihn JA, Kane J, Albert TJ, Vaccaro AR, Hilibrand AS (2011) What is the incidence and severity of dysphagia after anterior cervical surgery? Clin Orthop Relat Res 469(3):658–665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Joaquim AF, Murar J, Savage JW, Patel AA (2014) Dysphagia after anterior cervical spine surgery: a systematic review of potential preventative measures. Spine J 14(9):2246–2260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Smucker JD, Bassuener SR, Sasso RC, Riew KD (2017) Comparison of long-term differences in dysphagia: cervical arthroplasty and anterior cervical fusion. Clin Spine Surg 30(8):E1160–E1164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Joaquim AF, Riew KD (2017) Multilevel cervical arthroplasty: current evidence. A systematic review. Neurosurg Focus 42(2):E4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Alvin MD, Mroz TE (2014) The Mobi-C cervical disc for one-level and two-level cervical disc replacement: a review of the literature. Med Devices (Auckl) 7:397–403Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Delamarter RB, Zigler J (2013) Five-year reoperation rates, cervical total disc replacement versus fusion, results of a prospective randomized clinical trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 38(9):711–717CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Blumenthal SL, Ohnmeiss DD, Guyer RD, Zigler JE (2013) Reoperations in cervical total disc replacement compared with anterior cervical fusion: results compiled from multiple prospective food and drug administration investigational device exemption trials conducted at a single site. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 38(14):1177–1182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Jackson RJ, Davis RJ, Hoffman GA et al (2016) 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 24(5):734–745CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Coric D, Guyer RD, Nunley PD et al (2018) Prospective, randomized multicenter study of cervical arthroplasty versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: 5-year results with a metal-on-metal artificial disc. J Neurosurg Spine 28(3):252–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Loumeau TP, Darden BV, Kesman TJ et al (2016) 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 25(7):2263–2270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Gorrnet MF, Buttermann GR, Wohns R et al (2018) Safety and efficiency of cervical disc arthroplasty in ambulatory surgery centers vs. hospital settings. Int J Spine Surg 2(5):557–564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Fernström U (1966) Arthroplasty with intercorporal endoprothesis in herniated disc and in painful disc. Acta Chir Scand Suppl 357:154–159Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Hilibrand AS, Carlson GD, Palumbo MA, Jones PK, Bohlman HH (1999) Radiculopathy and myelopathy at segments adjacent to the site of a previous anterior cervical arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 81(4):519–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Zeng J, Liu H, Chen H, et al. Effect of prosthesis width and depth on heterotopic ossification after cervical disc arthroplasty. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2018Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Zeng J, Liu H, Chen H et al (2018) Comparison of heterotopic ossification after fixed- and mobile-core cervical disc arthroplasty. World Neurosurg S1878-8750(18):32121–32121Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Chang PY, Chang HK, Wu JC et al (2016) Differences between C3-4 and other subaxial levels of cervical disc arthroplasty: more heterotopic ossification at the 5-year follow-up. J Neurosurg Spine 24(5):752–759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Lei T, Liu Y, Wang H et al (2016) Clinical and radiological analysis of Bryan cervical disc arthroplasty: eight-year follow-up results compared with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Int Orthop 40(6):1197–1203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Song Q, He D, Han X, Zhang N, Wang J, Tian W (2018) Clinical and radiological outcomes of cervical disc arthroplasty: ten year follow-up study. Int Orthop 42(10):2389–2396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Yang YC, Nie L, Cheng L, Hou Y (2009) Clinical and radiographic reports following cervical arthroplasty: a 24-month follow-up. Int Orthop 33(4):1037–1042CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Cheng L, Nie L, Zhang L, Hou Y (2009) Fusion versus Bryan Cervical Disc in two-level cervical disc disease: a prospective, randomised study. Int Orthop 33(5):1347–1351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Pointillart V, Castelain JE, Coudert P, Cawley DT, Gille O, Vital JM (2018) Outcomes of the Bryan cervical disc replacement: fifteen year follow-up. Int Orthop 42(4):851–857CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© SICOT aisbl 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of NeurologyState University of Campinas (UNICAMP)CampinasBrazil
  2. 2.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryBrigham and Women’s HospitalBostonUSA
  3. 3.Department of Orthopedic SurgeryColumbia UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations