Advertisement

Cervical Motion Preserving Procedures (TDR)

  • Florian RingelEmail author
  • Eleftherios Archavlis
Chapter

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.

References

  1. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Le H, Thongtrangan I, Kim DH. Historical review of cervical arthroplasty. Neurosurg Focus. 2004;17(3):E1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of NeurosurgeryUniversitätsmedizin Mainz, Johannes Gutenberg Universität MainzMainzGermany

Personalised recommendations