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

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1

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

    Article  Google 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

    Article  PubMed  Google 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 16:384–389

    Article  Google 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) 3:12–20

    Article  Google 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

    Article  PubMed  Google 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

    Article  PubMed  Google 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

    Article  PubMed  Google 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

    Article  Google 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

    Article  PubMed  Google 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

    Article  Google 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

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google 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) 126:3809–3811

    Google 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

    Article  Google 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

    Article  PubMed  Google 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

    Article  PubMed  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

    Article  Google 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

    Article  Google 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

No fund received.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yu Sun.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

None.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (PPTX 1031 kb)

Supplementary file2 (DOCX 19217 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhao, Y., Zhou, F., Sun, Y. et al. Single-level cervical arthroplasty with ProDisc-C artificial disc: 10-year follow-up results in one centre. Eur Spine J 29, 2670–2674 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-019-06110-1

Download citation

Keywords

  • Cervical disc arthroplasty
  • Heterotopic ossification
  • Adjacent segment disease