Advertisement

Cervical Disc Arthroplasty

  • Blake M. Bodendorfer
  • Ashley E. MacConnell
  • S. Babak Kalantar
Chapter

Abstract

Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) has a long track record of pain relief and positive patient-reported outcomes for patients with degenerative disc disease and spondylosis. However, there is a growing desire to preserve motion while relieving pain to prevent future adjacent segment degeneration and pseudoarthrosis. An FDA-approved treatment that has been growing in popularity recently is cervical total disc arthroplasty (TDA), which has proven positive long-term outcomes with strict adherence to indications and contraindications. Patients with single-level and two-level cervical disease should be assessed for infection, osteoporosis, axial neck pain, severe spondylosis or instability, facet arthropathy, less than 3 mm of disc space, and greater than 15° of kyphotic deformity since these are all contraindications to the procedure. In a few randomized controlled trials comparing ACDF and cervical TDA, arthroplasty has demonstrated superiority as far out as 10 years.

Keywords

Cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) Total disc arthroplasty (TDA) Cervical disc replacement (CDR) Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) Laminoplasty Motion preservation 

References

  1. 1.
    Campbell MJ, Carreon LY, Traynelis V, Anderson PA. Use of cervical collar after single-level anterior cervical fusion with plate: is it necessary? Spine. 2009;34(1):43–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Goffin J, Geusens E, Vantomme N, Quintens E, Waerzeggers Y, Depreitere B, et al. Long-term follow-up after interbody fusion of the cervical spine. J Spinal Disord. 2004;17(2):79–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Litrico S, Lonjon N, Riouallon G, Cogniet A, Launay O, Beaurain J, et al. Adjacent segment disease after anterior cervical interbody fusion: a multicenter retrospective study of 288 patients with long-term follow-up. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2014;100(6. Suppl):S305–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chung J-Y, Kim S-K, Jung S-T, Lee K-B. Clinical adjacent-segment pathology after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: results after a minimum of 10-year follow-up. Spine J. 2014;14(10):2290–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hilibrand AS, Carlson GD, Palumbo MA, Jones PK, Bohlman HH. Radiculopathy and myelopathy at segments adjacent to the site of a previous anterior cervical arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1999;81(4):519–28.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Eck JC, Humphreys SC, Lim T-H, Jeong ST, Kim JG, Hodges SD, et al. Biomechanical study on the effect of cervical spine fusion on adjacent-level intradiscal pressure and segmental motion. Spine. 2002;27(22):2431–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fuller DA, Kirkpatrick JS, Emery SE, Geoffrey Wilber R, Davy DT. A kinematic study of the cervical spine before and after segmental arthrodesis. Spine. 1998;23(15):1649–56.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sandhu HS, Grewal HS, Parvataneni H. Bone grafting for spinal fusion. Orthop Clin North Am. 1999;30(4):685–98.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brown CA, Eismont FJ. Complications in spinal fusion. Orthop Clin North Am. 1998;29(4):679–99.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Summers BN, Eisenstein SM. Donor site pain from the ilium. A complication of lumbar spine fusion. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1989;71(4):677–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Brodke DS, Zdeblick TA. Modified smith-Robinson procedure for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Spine. 1992;17(10 Suppl):S427–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bohlman HH, Emery SE, Goodfellow DB, Jones PK. Robinson anterior cervical discectomy and arthrodesis for cervical radiculopathy. Long-term follow-up of one hundred and twenty-two patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1993;75(9):1298–307.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cummins BH, Robertson JT, Gill SS. Surgical experience with an implanted artificial cervical joint. J Neurosurg. 1998;88(6):943–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Stanton P, Eck JC. Materials and design characteristics of cervical arthroplasty devices. Tech Orthop. 2010;25(2):93–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rousseau M-A, Cottin P, Levante S, Nogier A, Alexis N, Lazennec J-Y, et al. In vivo kinematics of two types of ball-and-socket cervical disc replacements in the sagittal plane: cranial versus caudal geometric center. Spine. 2008;33(1):E6–9.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Barrey C, Mosnier T, Jund J, Perrin G, Skalli W. In vitro evaluation of a ball-and-socket cervical disc prosthesis with cranial geometric center. J Neurosurg Spine. 2009;11(5):538–46.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lee S-H, Im Y-J, Kim K-T, Kim Y-H, Park W-M, Kim K. Comparison of cervical spine biomechanics after fixed- and mobile-core artificial disc replacement: a finite element analysis. Spine. 2011;36(9):700–8.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Moatz B, Tortolani PJ. Cervical disc arthroplasty: pros and cons. Surg Neurol Int. 2012;3(Suppl 3):S216–24.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Veruva SY, Steinbeck MJ, Toth J, Alexander DD, Kurtz SM. Which design and biomaterial factors affect clinical wear performance of total disc replacements? A systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014;472(12):3759–69.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ding D, Shaffrey ME. Cervical disk arthroplasty: patient selection. Clin Neurosurg. 2012;59:91–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Amoretti N, Iannessi A, Lesbats V, Marcy P-Y, Hovorka E, Bronsard N, et al. Imaging of intervertebral disc prostheses. Diagn Interv Imaging. 2012;93(1):10–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Leven D, Meaike J, Radcliff K, Qureshi S. Cervical disc replacement surgery: indications, technique, and technical pearls. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2017;10(2):160–9.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gornet MF, Burkus JK, Shaffrey ME, Argires PJ, Nian H, Harrell FE Jr. Cervical disc arthroplasty with PRESTIGE LP disc versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a prospective, multicenter investigational device exemption study. J Neurosurg Spine. 2015:1–16.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Heller JG, Sasso RC, Papadopoulos SM, Anderson PA, Fessler RG, Hacker RJ, et al. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hisey MS, Bae HW, Davis R, Gaede S, Hoffman G, Kim K, et al. 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 [Internet]. 2014;8. Available from  https://doi.org/10.14444/1007.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mummaneni PV, Kenneth Burkus J, Haid RW, Traynelis VC, Zdeblick TA. Clinical and radiographic analysis of cervical disc arthroplasty compared with allograft fusion: a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Neurosurg Spine. 2007;6(3):198–209.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Murrey D, Janssen M, Delamarter R, Goldstein J, Zigler J, Tay B, et al. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Phillips FM, Lee JYB, Geisler FH, Cappuccino A, Chaput CD, DeVine JG, et al. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Vaccaro A, Beutler W, Peppelman W, Marzluff JM, Highsmith J, Mugglin A, et al. Clinical outcomes with selectively constrained SECURE-C cervical disc arthroplasty: two-year results from a prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter investigational device exemption study. Spine. 2013;38(26):2227–39.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Anderson PA, Sasso RC, Riew KD. Update on cervical artificial disk replacement. Instr Course Lect. 2007;56:237–45.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Fayyazi AH, Taormina J, Svach D, Stein J, Ordway NR. Assessment of magnetic resonance imaging artifact following cervical Total disc arthroplasty. Int J Spine Surg. 2015;9:30.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Xu B, Ma J-X, Tian J-H, Ge L, Ma X-L. Indirect meta-analysis comparing clinical outcomes of total cervical disc replacements with fusions for cervical degenerative disc disease. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):1740.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    McAfee PC, Reah C, Gilder K, Eisermann L, Cunningham B. A meta-analysis of comparative outcomes following cervical arthroplasty or anterior cervical fusion. Spine. 2012;37(11):943–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Peng CWB, Yue WM, Basit A, Guo CM, Tow BPB, Chen JLT, et al. Intermediate results of the Prestige LP cervical disc replacement. Spine. 2011;36(2):E105–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    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. 2015;40(10):674–83.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Zigler JE, Delamarter R, Murrey D, Spivak J, Janssen M. 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. 2013;38(3):203–9.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kelly MP, Mok JM, Frisch RF, Tay BK. Adjacent segment motion after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion versus ProDisc-C cervical Total disk arthroplasty. Spine. 2011;36(15):1171–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Radcliff K, Davis RJ, Hisey MS, Nunley PD, Hoffman GA, Jackson RJ, et al. Long-term evaluation of cervical disc arthroplasty with the Mobi-C© cervical disc: a randomized, prospective, multicenter clinical trial with seven-year follow-up. Int J Spine Surg. 2017;11:31.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Park JH, Rhim SC, Roh SW. Mid-term follow-up of clinical and radiologic outcomes in cervical Total disk replacement (Mobi-C). J Spinal Disord Tech. 2013;26(3):141–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Quan GMY, Vital J-M, Hansen S, Pointillart V. Eight-year clinical and radiological follow-up of the Bryan cervical disc arthroplasty. Spine. 2011;36(8):639–46.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Dejaegher J, Walraevens J, van Loon J, Van Calenbergh F, Demaerel P, Goffin J. 10-year follow-up after implantation of the Bryan cervical disc prosthesis. Eur Spine J. 2017;26(4):1191–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Sasso WR, Smucker JD, Sasso MP, Sasso RC. Long-term clinical outcomes of cervical disc arthroplasty: a prospective, randomized, controlled trial. Spine. 2017;42(4):209–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Blake M. Bodendorfer
    • 1
  • Ashley E. MacConnell
    • 2
  • S. Babak Kalantar
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryMedStar Georgetown Univeristy HospitalWashington, DCUSA
  2. 2.School of Medicine, Georgetown UniversityWashington, DCUSA

Personalised recommendations