Advertisement

Single-level cervical arthroplasty with ProDisc-C artificial disc: 10-year follow-up results in one centre

  • Yanbin Zhao
  • Feifei Zhou
  • Yu SunEmail author
  • Shengfa Pan
Supplement article

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term clinical and radiographic outcomes of cervical arthroplasty using the ProDisc-C prosthesis.

Methods

Clinical and radiographic evaluations, including dynamic flexion–extension lateral images, were performed at baseline and at 10-year follow-up.

Results

Twenty-seven patients who had single-level ProDisc-C arthroplasty were followed up for a mean period of 123 months. The range of motion at the operated level was 8.9° ± 3.9° at baseline and 6.6° ± 3.5° at final follow-up. Twenty of 27 levels (74%) developed heterotopic ossification. According to McAfee’s classification, one level was classified as grade I, four levels were classified as grade II, 12 levels were classified as grade III and three levels were classified as grade IV. Three patients developed recurrent cervical radiculopathy or myelopathy due to adjacent segment disease and received the reoperations. The reoperations included two cases of cervical arthroplasty at adjacent segments and one case of cervical laminoplasty.

Conclusions

ProDisc-C arthroplasty had acceptable clinical and radiographic results at 10-year follow-up. Heterotopic ossification was common after ProDisc-C arthroplasty, which decreased the range of motion.

Graphic abstract

These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Keywords

Cervical disc arthroplasty Heterotopic ossification Adjacent segment disease 

Notes

Funding

No fund received.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

None.

Supplementary material

586_2019_6110_MOESM1_ESM.pptx (1 mb)
Supplementary file1 (PPTX 1031 kb)
586_2019_6110_MOESM2_ESM.docx (18.8 mb)
Supplementary file2 (DOCX 19217 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Zigler JE, Delamarter R, Murrey D, Spivak J, Janssen M (2013) ProDisc-C and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion as surgical treatment for single-level cervical symptomatic degenerative disc disease: five-year results of a Food and Drug Administration study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 38:203–209.  https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e318278eb38 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    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 97:1738–1747.  https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.N.01186 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    McAfee PC, Cunningham BW, Devine J, Williams E, Yu-Yahiro J (2003) Classification of heterotopic ossification (HO) in artificial disk replacement. J Spinal Disord Tech 16:384–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    White AA, 3rd, Panjabi MM (1978) The basic kinematics of the human spine. A review of past and current knowledge. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 3:12–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Robertson JT, Papadopoulos SM, Traynelis VC (2005) Assessment of adjacent-segment disease in patients treated with cervical fusion or arthroplasty: a prospective 2-year study. J Neurosurg Spine 3:417–423.  https://doi.org/10.3171/spi.2005.3.6.0417 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Loumeau TP, Darden BV, Kesman TJ, Odum SM, Van Doren BA, Laxer EB, Murrey DB (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 25:2263–2270.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4431-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mehren C, Heider F, Siepe CJ, Zillner B, Kothe R, Korge A, Mayer HM (2017) Clinical and radiological outcome at 10 years of follow-up after total cervical disc replacement. Eur Spine J 26:2441–2449.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-017-5204-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    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) 38:711–717.  https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182797592 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Murrey D, Janssen M, Delamarter R, Goldstein J, Zigler J, Tay B, Darden B (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 9:275–286.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2008.05.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mehren C, Suchomel P, Grochulla F, Barsa P, Sourkova P, Hradil J, Korge A, Mayer HM (2006) Heterotopic ossification in total cervical artificial disc replacement. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31:2802–2806.  https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000245852.70594.d5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cho YH, Kim KS, Kwon YM (2013) Heterotopic ossification after cervical arthroplasty with ProDisc-C: time course radiographic follow-up over 3 years. Korean J Spine 10:19–24.  https://doi.org/10.14245/kjs.2013.10.1.19 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zhao YB, Sun Y, Zhou FF, Liu ZJ (2013) Cervical disc arthroplasty with ProDisc-C artificial disc: 5-year radiographic follow-up results. Chin Med J (Engl) 126:3809–3811Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Yi S, Kim KN, Yang MS, Yang JW, Kim H, Ha Y, Yoon DH, Shin HC (2010) Difference in occurrence of heterotopic ossification according to prosthesis type in the cervical artificial disc replacement. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35:1556–1561.  https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181c6526b CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yi S, Shin DA, Kim KN, Choi G, Shin HC, Kim KS, Yoon DH (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
  15. 15.
    Lou J, Li H, Rong X, Wu W, Liu H (2016) Location change of center of rotation after single-level cervical total disc replacement with ProDisc-C. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc 50:339–345.  https://doi.org/10.3944/AOTT.2016.15.0182 Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zhou HH, Qu Y, Dong RP, Kang MY, Zhao JW (2015) Does heterotopic ossification affect the outcomes of cervical total disc replacement? A meta-analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 40:E332–E340.  https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000000776 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zhao Y, Zhang Y, Sun Y, Pan S, Zhou F, Liu Z (2016) Application of cervical arthroplasty with bryan cervical disc: 10-year follow-up results in China. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 41:111–115.  https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000001145 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Brenke C, Scharf J, Schmieder K, Barth M (2012) High prevalence of heterotopic ossification after cervical disc arthroplasty: outcome and intraoperative findings following explantation of 22 cervical disc prostheses. J Neurosurg Spine 17:141–146.  https://doi.org/10.3171/2012.4.SPINE12223 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryPeking University Third HospitalBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations