Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Cervical Motion Preserving Procedures (TDR)

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Spine Surgery

  • 101k Accesses

Abstract

Symptomatic cervical degenerative disc disease leading to radiculopathy is a common problem with an incidence of 0.83–1.79 per 1.000 person years. While many episodes of radicular symptoms can be successfully managed by conservative therapy, patients with refractory symptoms or a significant paresis are candidates for a surgical treatment. However, different surgical techniques are available to treat cervical degenerative disc disease, as anterior cervical discectomy without fusion, anterior cervical discectomy with fusion or posterior foraminotomy. Anterior cervical discectomy with fusion as described in the 1960’s (Chap. 3) is currently regarded as the gold standard. Although ACDF provides excellent results with regard to relief of cervical radicular symptoms and neck pain, the loss of motion at the fused level might be associated with secondary problems as accelerated degeneration of adjacent levels. In order to overcome this problem the motion preservation concept developed and cervical disc prostheses maintaining segmental motion became available in the 1990ies. From there on a large selection of different cervical disc prostheses became available which are well studied in comparison to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion in several prospective randomized trials.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Bae HW, Kim KD, Nunley PD, Jackson RJ, Hisey MS, Davis RJ, Hoffman GA, Gaede SE, Danielson GO, Peterson DL, Stokes JM, Araghi A. Comparison of clinical outcomes of 1-and 2-level total disc replacement. Spine. 2015;40(11):759–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Barbagallo GMV, Certo F, Visocchi M, Sciacca G, Albanese V. Double-level cervical total disc replacement for adjacent segment disease: is it a useful treatment? Description of late onset heterotopic ossification and review of the literature. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2014;18:15–23.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Burkus JK, Traynelis VC, Haid RW Jr, Mummaneni PV. 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. 2014;21(4):516–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Carrier CS, Bono CM, Lebl DR. Evidence-based analysis of adjacent segment degeneration and disease after ACDF: a systematic review. Spine J. 2013;13(10):1370–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Coric D, Nunley PD, Guyer RD, Musante D, Carmody CN, Gordon CR, Lauryssen C, Ohnmeiss DD, Boltes MO. Prospective, randomized, multicenter study of cervical arthroplasty: 269 patients from the KineflexIC artificial disc investigational device exemption study with a minimum 2-year follow-up clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine. 2011;15(4):348–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Davis RJ, Nunley PD, Kim KD, Hisey MS, Jackson RJ, Bae HW, Hoffman GA, Gaede SE, Danielson GO, Gordon C, Stone MB. 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. 2015;22(1):15–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Heller JG, Sasso RC, Papadopoulos SM, Anderson PA, Fessler RG, Hacker RJ, Coric D, Cauthen JC, Riew DK. Comparison of BRYAN cervical disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical decompression and fusion clinical and radiographic results of a randomized, controlled, clinical trial. Spine. 2009;34(2):101–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Hilibrand AS, Yoo JU, Carlson GD, Bohlman HH. The success of anterior cervical arthrodesis adjacent to a previous fusion. Spine. 1997;22(14):1574–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. 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(5):734–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 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(1):7–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Le H, Thongtrangan I, Kim DH. Historical review of cervical arthroplasty. Neurosurg Focus. 2004;17(3):E1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Lu VM, Zhang L, Scherman DB, Rao PJ, Mobbs RJ, Phan K. Treating multi-level cervical disc disease with hybrid surgery compared to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Spine J. 2017;26(2):546–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Mehren C, Suchomel P, Grochulla F, Barsa P, Sourkova P, Hradil J, Korge A, Mayer HM. Heterotopic ossification in total cervical artificial disc replacement. Spine. 2006;31(24):2802–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Murrey D, Janssen M, Delamarter R, Goldstein J, Zigler J, Tay B, Darden B. 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. 2009;9(4):275–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Park DK, Lin EL, Phillips FM. Index and adjacent level kinematics after cervical disc replacement and anterior fusion in vivo quantitative radiographic analysis. Spine. 2011;36(9):721–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Park JB, Cho YS, Riew KD. Development of adjacent-level ossification in patients with an anterior cervical plate. J Bone Joint Surg Am Vol. 2005;87a(3):558–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Phillips FM, Allen TR, Regan JJ, Albert TJ, Cappuccino A, Devine JG, Ahrens JE, Hipp JA, McAfee PC. Cervical disc replacement in patients with and without previous adjacent level fusion surgery a prospective study. Spine. 2009;34(6):556–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Phillips FM, Geisler FH, Gilder KM, Reah C, Howell KM, McAfee PC. 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 (Phila Pa 1976). 2015;40(10):674–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Phillips FM, Lee JYB, Geisler FH, Cappuccino A, Chaput CD, DeVine JG, Reah C, Gilder KM, Howell KM, McAfee PC. 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. 2013;38(15):E907–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Radcliff K, Coric D, Albert T. 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. 2016;25(2):213–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Radcliff K, Siburn S, Murphy H, Woods B, Qureshi S. Bias in cervical total disc replacement trials. Curr Rev Muscoskelet Med. 2017;10(2):170–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Schwab JS, Diangelo DJ, Foley KT. Motion compensation associated with single-level cervical fusion: where does the lost motion go? Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006;31(21):2439–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Suchomel P, Jurak L, Benes V, Brabec R, Bradac O, Elgawhary S. Clinical results and development of heterotopic ossification in total cervical disc replacement during a 4-year follow-up. Eur Spine J. 2010;19(2):307–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Tu TH, Wu JC, Huang WC, Wu CL, Ko CC, Cheng H. The effects of carpentry on heterotopic ossification and mobility in cervical arthroplasty: determination by computed tomography with a minimum 2-year follow-up: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine. 2012;16(6):601–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Vaccaro A, Beutler W, Peppelman W, Marzluff JM, Highsmith J, Mugglin A, DeMuth G, Gudipally M, Baker KJ. Clinical outcomes with selectively constrained SECURE-C cervical disc Arthroplasty two-year results from a prospectivei, randomized, controlled, multicenter investigational device exemption study. Spine. 2013;38(26):2227–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. van Geest S, Kuijper B, Oterdoom M, van den Hout W, Brand R, Stijnen T, Assendelft P, Koes B, Jacobs W, Peul W, Vleggeert-Lankamp C. CASINO: surgical or nonsurgical treatment for cervical radiculopathy, a randomised controlled trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2014;15:129.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Wu JC, Huang WC, Tsai TY, Fay LY, Ko CC, Tu TH, Wu CL, Cheng H. Multilevel arthroplasty for cervical spondylosis more heterotopic ossification at 3 years of follow-up. Spine. 2012;37(20):E1251–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Zhou HH, Qu Y, Dong RP, Kang MY, Zhao JW. Does heterotopic ossification affect the outcomes of cervical Total disc replacement? Spine. 2015;40(6):E332–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Neurosurgery, Universitätsmedizin Mainz, Johannes Gutenberg Universität Mainz, Mainz, Germany

    Florian Ringel & Eleftherios Archavlis

Authors
  1. Florian Ringel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Eleftherios Archavlis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Florian Ringel .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Neurosurgery, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany

    Bernhard Meyer

  2. Department of Spine Surgery, Sana Klinikum Offenbach, Offenbach, Germany

    Michael Rauschmann

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Ringel, F., Archavlis, E. (2019). Cervical Motion Preserving Procedures (TDR). In: Meyer, B., Rauschmann, M. (eds) Spine Surgery. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98875-7_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98875-7_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-98874-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-98875-7

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation