Advertisement

International Orthopaedics

, Volume 43, Issue 4, pp 761–766 | Cite as

Cervical disc herniation: which surgery?

  • Simon MazasEmail author
  • Ahmed Benzakour
  • Jean-Etienne Castelain
  • Camille Damade
  • Soufiane Ghailane
  • Olivier Gille
Review

Abstract

Purpose

Cervical disc herniation is a common pathology. It can be treated by different surgical procedures. We aimed to list and analyzed every available surgical option. We focused on the comparison between anterior cervical decompression and fusion and cervical disc arthroplasty.

Results

The anterior approach is the most commonly used to achieve decompression and fusion by the mean of autograft or cage that could also be combined with anterior plating. Anterior procedures without fusion have shown good outcomes but are limited by post-operative cervicalgia and kyphotic events. Posterior cervical foraminotomy achieved good outcomes but is not appropriate in a case of a central hernia or ossification of the posterior ligament. Cervical disc arthroplasty is described to decrease the rate of adjacent segment degeneration. It became very popular during the last decades with numerous studies with different implant device showing encouraging results but it has not proved its superiority to anterior cervical decompression and fusion. Anterior bone loss and heterotopic ossification are still to be investigated.

Conclusion

Anterior cervical decompression and fusion remain the gold standard for surgical treatment of cervical disc herniation.

Keywords

Cervical disc herniation Cervical disc arthroplasty Anterior cervical decompression 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

References

  1. 1.
    Yamano Y (1985) Soft disc herniation of the cervical spine. Int Orthop 9:19–27.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00267033 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Herkowitz HN, Kurz LT, Overholt DP (1990) Surgical management of cervical soft disc herniation. A comparison between the anterior and posterior approach. Spine 15:1026–1030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Liao J-C, Niu C-C, Chen W-J, Chen L-H (2008) Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cage filled with cancellous allograft in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Int Orthop 32:643–648.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-007-0378-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Xie Y, Li H, Yuan J et al (2015) A prospective randomized comparison of PEEK cage containing calcium sulphate or demineralized bone matrix with autograft in anterior cervical interbody fusion. Int Orthop 39:1129–1136.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-014-2610-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    SMITH GW, ROBINSON RA (1958) The treatment of certain cervical-spine disorders by anterior removal of the intervertebral disc and interbody fusion. J Bone Joint Surg Am 40–A:607–624.  https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-195840030-00009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ipsen BJ, Kim DH, Jenis LG et al (2007) Effect of plate position on clinical outcome after anterior cervical spine surgery. Spine J Off J North Am Spine Soc 7:637–642.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2006.09.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chin KR, Pencle FJR, Mustafa LS et al (2018) Sentinel sign in standalone anterior cervical fusion: outcomes and fusion rate. J Orthop 15:935–939.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jor.2018.08.027 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Spallone A, Marchione P, Li Voti P et al (2014) Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with “mini-invasive” harvesting of iliac crest graft versus polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages: a retrospective outcome analysis. Int J Surg 12:1328–1332.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2014.11.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pointillart V, Cernier A, Vital JM, Senegas J (1995) Anterior discectomy without interbody fusion for cervical disc herniation. Eur Spine J 4:45–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ruetten S, Komp M, Merk H, Godolias G (2007) A new full-endoscopic technique for cervical posterior Foraminotomy in the treatment of lateral disc herniations using 6.9-mm endoscopes: prospective 2-year results of 87 patients. Minim Invasive Neurosurg 50:219–226.  https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2007-985860 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Reitz H, Joubert MJ (1964) Intractable headache and cervico-brachialgia treated by complete replacement of cervical intervertebral discs with a metal prosthesis. South Afr Med J Suid-Afr Tydskr Vir Geneeskd 38:881–884Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cheng L, Nie L, Zhang L, Hou Y (2008) Fusion versus Bryan cervical disc in two-level cervical disc disease: a prospective, randomised study. Int Orthop 33:1347.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-008-0655-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bertagnoli R, Yue JJ, Pfeiffer F et al (2005) Early results after ProDisc-C cervical disc replacement. J Neurosurg Spine 2:403–410.  https://doi.org/10.3171/spi.2005.2.4.0403 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kieser DC, Cawley DT, Fujishiro T et al (2018) Risk factors for anterior bone loss in cervical disc arthroplasty. J Neurosurg Spine 29:123–129.  https://doi.org/10.3171/2018.1.SPINE171018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Luo J, Gong M, Huang S et al (2015) Incidence of adjacent segment degeneration in cervical disc arthroplasty versus anterior cervical decompression and fusion meta-analysis of prospective studies. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 135:155–160.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-014-2125-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Scoville WB (1945) Recent developments in the diagnosis and treatment of cervical ruptured intervertebral discs. Proc Am Fed Clin Res 2:23Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Song Z, Zhang Z, Hao J et al (2016) Microsurgery or open cervical foraminotomy for cervical radiculopathy? A systematic review. Int Orthop 40:1335–1343.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-016-3193-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    O’Toole JE, Sheikh H, Eichholz KM et al (2006) Endoscopic posterior cervical foraminotomy and discectomy. Neurosurg Clin N Am 17:411–422.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nec.2006.06.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gala VC, O’Toole JE, Voyadzis J-M, Fessler RG (2007) Posterior minimally invasive approaches for the cervical spine. Orthop Clin N Am 38:339–349.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocl.2007.02.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hosono N, Yonenobu K, Ono K (1996) Neck and shoulder pain after laminoplasty. A noticeable complication. Spine 21:1969–1973CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zdeblick TA, Zou D, Warden KE et al (1992) Cervical stability after foraminotomy. A biomechanical in vitro analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 74:22–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Epstein NE, Schwall G, Reillly T et al (2011) Surgeon choices, and the choice of surgeons, affect total hospital charges for single-level anterior cervical surgery. Spine 36:905–909.  https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181e6c4d8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Topuz K, Çolak A, Kaya S et al (2009) Two-level contiguous cervical disc disease treated with peek cages packed with demineralized bone matrix: results of 3-year follow-up. Eur Spine J 18:238–243.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-008-0869-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Dickerman RD, Reynolds AS, Morgan B (2008) Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cage filled with bone morphogenic protein and demineralised bone matrix in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Int Orthop 32:717–717.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-007-0450-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Young WF, Rosenwasser RH (1993) An early comparative analysis of the use of fibular allograft versus autologous iliac crest graft for interbody fusion after anterior cervical discectomy. Spine 18:1123–1124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Park J-B, Cho Y-S, Riew KD (2005) Development of adjacent-level ossification in patients with an anterior cervical plate. J Bone Jt Surg 87:558–563.  https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.C.01555 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wang JC, McDonough PW, Kanim LE et al (2001) Increased fusion rates with cervical plating for three-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Spine 26:643–646-647CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Das K, Couldwell WT, Sava G, Taddonio RF (2001) Use of cylindrical titanium mesh and locking plates in anterior cervical fusion. Technical note. J Neurosurg 94:174–178Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Fraser JF, Härtl R (2007) Anterior approaches to fusion of the cervical spine: a metaanalysis of fusion rates. J Neurosurg Spine 6:298–303.  https://doi.org/10.3171/spi.2007.6.4.2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Suk K-S, Kim K-T, Lee S-H, Park S-W (2006) Prevertebral soft tissue swelling after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with plate fixation. Int Orthop 30:290–294.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-005-0072-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Zhou J, Li J, Lin H et al (2018) A comparison of a self-locking stand-alone cage and anterior cervical plate for ACDF: minimum 3-year assessment of radiographic and clinical outcomes. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 170:73–78.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clineuro.2018.04.033 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kapetanakis S, Thomaidis T, Charitoudis G et al (2017) Single anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) using self- locking stand-alone polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cage: evaluation of pain and health-related quality of life. J Spine Surg 3:312–322.  https://doi.org/10.21037/jss.2017.06.21 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Grasso G, Giambartino F, Tomasello G, Iacopino G (2014) Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with ROI-C peek cage: cervical alignment and patient outcomes. Eur Spine J 23:650–657.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-014-3553-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Grasso G, Landi A (2018) Long-term clinical and radiological outcomes following anterior cervical discectomy and fusion by zero-profile anchored cage. J Craniovertebral Junction Spine 9:87–92.  https://doi.org/10.4103/jcvjs.JCVJS_36_18 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Chen Y, Lü G, Wang B et al (2016) A comparison of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) using self-locking stand-alone polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cage with ACDF using cage and plate in the treatment of three-level cervical degenerative spondylopathy: a retrospective study with 2-year follow-up. Eur Spine J 25:2255–2262.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4391-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Fountas KN, Kapsalaki EZ, Nikolakakos LG et al (2007) Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion associated complications. Spine 32:2310–2317.  https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e318154c57e CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Jho HD (1996) Microsurgical anterior cervical foraminotomy for radiculopathy: a new approach to cervical disc herniation. J Neurosurg 84:155–160.  https://doi.org/10.3171/jns.1996.84.2.0155 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ahn Y, Lee SH, Chung SE et al (2005) Percutaneous endoscopic cervical discectomy for discogenic cervical headache due to soft disc herniation. Neuroradiology 47:924–930.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00234-005-1436-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Ruetten S, Komp M, Merk H, Godolias G (2008) Full-endoscopic anterior decompression versus conventional anterior decompression and fusion in cervical disc herniations. Int Orthop 33:1677.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-008-0684-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Fernström U (1966) Arthroplasty with intercorporal endoprothesis in herniated disc and in painful disc. Acta Chir Scand Suppl 357:154–159Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Pointillart V, Castelain J-E, Coudert P et al (2018) Outcomes of the Bryan cervical disc replacement: fifteen year follow-up. Int Orthop 42:851–857.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-017-3745-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Chen Y, He Z, Yang H et al (2013) Clinical and radiological results of total disc replacement in the cervical spine with preoperative reducible kyphosis. Int Orthop 37:463–468.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-012-1754-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Zhu Y, Tian Z, Zhu B et al (2016) Bryan cervical disc arthroplasty versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for treatment of cervical disc diseases: a meta-analysis of prospective, randomized controlled trials. [miscellaneous article]. Spine 41:E733–E741.  https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000001367 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Zheng B, Hao D, Guo H, He B (2017) ACDF vs TDR for patients with cervical spondylosis – an 8 year follow up study. BMC Surg 17:113.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12893-017-0316-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    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 40:1197–1203.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-015-3098-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Zou S, Gao J, Xu B et al (2017) Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) versus cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) for two contiguous levels cervical disc degenerative disease: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Eur Spine J 26:985–997.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4655-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Hilibrand AS, Carlson GD, Palumbo MA et al (1999) Radiculopathy and myelopathy at segments adjacent to the site of a previous anterior cervical arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 81:519–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Lee JC, Lee S-H, Peters C, Riew KD (2015) Adjacent segment pathology requiring reoperation after anterior cervical arthrodesis: the influence of smoking, sex, and number of operated levels. Spine 40:E571–E577.  https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000000846 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Zhong Z-M, Zhu S-Y, Zhuang J-S et al (2016) Reoperation after cervical disc arthroplasty versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a meta-analysis. Clin Orthop 474:1307–1316.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-016-4707-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Alvin MD, Abbott EE, Lubelski D et al (2014) Cervical arthroplasty: a critical review of the literature. Spine J 14:2231–2245.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2014.03.047 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Sundseth J, Fredriksli OA, Kolstad F et al (2017) The Norwegian cervical arthroplasty trial (NORCAT): 2-year clinical outcome after single-level cervical arthroplasty versus fusion—a prospective, single-blinded, randomized, controlled multicenter study. Eur Spine J 26:1225–1235.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4922-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Yi S, Shin DA, Kim KN et al (2013) The predisposing factors for the heterotopic ossification after cervical artificial disc replacement. Spine J 13:1048–1054.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2013.02.036 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Guérin P, Obeid I, Bourghli A et al (2012) Heterotopic ossification after cervical disc replacement: clinical significance and radiographic analysis. A prospective study. Acta Orthop Belg 78:80–86Google Scholar

Copyright information

© SICOT aisbl 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Service de chirurgie orthopédique, Unité Rachis 1CHU Bordeaux PellegrinBordeauxFrance

Personalised recommendations