Abstract
Cervical disc arthroplasty techniques were developed as an alternative to fusion in order to preserve natural motion and reduce the risk of adjacent segment degeneration in the appropriately selected patients with cervical myeloradiculopathy. These arthroplasty implants must provide stability, preserve physiologic motion, and replicate the kinematic signature of the natural disc. There are currently eight cervical arthroplasty implants approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in the United States. The majority of approved implants follow a metal on polyethylene ball-in-socket or saddle-type design. Over the past decade, there has been an explosion of cervical arthroplasty implant designs each with their own advantages and disadvantages. The purpose of this chapter is to review the biomechanics and kinematics of the natural cervical disc. We will also review available in vivo and ex vivo literature on novel elastomeric compression, hydraulic, and next-generation ball-in-socket cervical arthroplasty designs.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
Bogduk N, Mercer S (2000) Biomechanics of the cervical spine. I: normal kinematics. Clin Biomech Bristol Avon 15:633–648
Cepoiu-Martin M, Faris P, Lorenzetti D, Prefontaine E, Noseworthy T, Sutherland L (2011) Artificial cervical disc arthroplasty: a systematic review. Spine 36:E1623–E1633. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182163814
Chin KR, Lubinski JR, Zimmers KB, Sands BE, Pencle F (2017) Clinical experience and two-year follow-up with a one-piece viscoelastic cervical total disc replacement. J Spine Surg 3:630–640. https://doi.org/10.21037/jss.2017.12.03
Fransen P (2016) Search results – radiographic outcome and adjacent segment evaluation two years after cervical disc replacement with the BAGUERA C prosthesis as treatment of degenerative cervical disc disease – National Library of medicine. J Spine 5:1–7. https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/radiographic-outcome-and-adjacent-segment-evaluation-two-years-after-cervical-disc-replacement-with-the-baguerac-prosthesis-as-tre-2165-7939-1000298.pdf
Hilibrand AS, Carlson GD, Palumbo MA, Jones PK, Bohlman HH (1999) Radiculopathy and myelopathy at segments adjacent to the site of a previous anterior cervical arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 81:519–528
Holmes A, Wang C, Han ZH, Dang GT (1994) The range and nature of flexion-extension motion in the cervical spine. Spine 19:2505–2510
Hwang H, Hipp JA, Ben-Galim P, Reitman CA (2008) Threshold cervical range-of-motion necessary to detect abnormal intervertebral motion in cervical spine radiographs. Spine 33:E261–E267. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31816b88a4
Iai H, Goto S, Yamagata M, Tamaki T, Moriya H, Takahashi K, Mimura M (1994) Three-dimensional motion of the upper cervical spine in rheumatoid arthritis. Spine 19:272–276
Ishii T, Mukai Y, Hosono N, Sakaura H, Fujii R, Nakajima Y, Tamura S, Iwasaki M, Yoshikawa H, Sugamoto K (2006) Kinematics of the cervical spine in lateral bending: in vivo three-dimensional analysis. Spine 31:155–160
Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, Mowat F, Halpern M (2007) Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89:780–785. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.F.00222
Lauryssen C, Coric D, Dimmig T, Musante D, Ohnmeiss DD, Stubbs HA (2012) Cervical total disc replacement using a novel compressible prosthesis: results from a prospective Food and Drug Administration-regulated feasibility study with 24-month follow-up. Int J Spine Surg 6:71–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsp.2012.02.001
Lazaro BCR, Yucesoy K, Yuksel KZ, Kowalczyk I, Rabin D, Fink M, Duggal N (2010) Effect of arthroplasty design on cervical spine kinematics: analysis of the Bryan disc, ProDisc-C, and synergy disc. Neurosurg Focus 28:E6. https://doi.org/10.3171/2010.3.FOCUS1058
Lazennec J-Y, Aaron A, Ricart O, Rakover JP (2016) The innovative viscoelastic CP ESP cervical disk prosthesis with six degrees of freedom: biomechanical concepts, development program and preliminary clinical experience. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol Orthop Traumatol 26:9–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-015-1695-1
Lee JH, Park WM, Kim YH, Jahng T-A (2016) A biomechanical analysis of an artificial disc with a shock-absorbing Core property by using whole-cervical spine finite element analysis. Spine 41:E893–E901. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000001468
McAfee PC (2004) The indications for lumbar and cervical disc replacement. Spine J Off J North Am Spine Soc 4:177S–181S. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2004.07.003
McNally D, Naylor J, Johnson S (2012) An in vitro biomechanical comparison of CadiscTM-L with natural lumbar discs in axial compression and sagittal flexion. Eur Spine J 21:612–617. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-012-2249-4
Mummaneni PV, Burkus JK, Haid RW, Traynelis VC, Zdeblick TA (2007) Clinical and radiographic analysis of cervical disc arthroplasty compared with allograft fusion: a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Neurosurg Spine 6:198–209. https://doi.org/10.3171/spi.2007.6.3.198
Panjabi MM (1992) The stabilizing system of the spine. Part II. Neutral zone and instability hypothesis. J Spinal Disord 5:390–396. Discussion 397
Patwardhan AG, Tzermiadianos MN, Tsitsopoulos PP, Voronov LI, Renner SM, Reo ML, Carandang G, Ritter-Lang K, Havey RM (2012) Primary and coupled motions after cervical total disc replacement using a compressible six-degree-of-freedom prosthesis. Eur Spine J Off Publ Eur Spine Soc Eur Spinal Deform Soc Eur Sect Cerv Spine Res Soc 21(Suppl 5):S618–S629. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-010-1575-7
Phillips F, Sasso R, Coric D, Guyer R, Sama A, Cammisa F, Blumenthal S, Albert T, Zigler J (2017) Clinical and radiographic outcomes for the M6-C artificial cervical disc: 1 year follow-up at five IDE investigation centers for a novel design six degree of freedom prosthesis. Int Soc Adv Spine Surg. https://www.isass.org/abstracts/isass17-oral-posters/isass17-660-Clinical-and-Radiographic-Outcomes-for-the-M6-C-Artificial-Cervical-Di.html
Pickett GE, Sekhon LHS, Sears WR, Duggal N (2006) Complications with cervical arthroplasty. J Neurosurg Spine 4:98–105. https://doi.org/10.3171/spi.2006.4.2.98
Rieger B (2014) Comparison of software-assisted implantation of cadisc-C with the disc prosthesis rotaio in the therapy of cervical disc disease in terms of postoperative changes in Neck Disability Index (NDI) a prospective, controlled and randomized study. NeurochirugieUniversitätsklinikum Köln
Sasso RC, Phillips F, Coric D, Guyer R, Sama A, Cammisa A, Blumenthal S, Albert T, Zigler J (2018) M6-C artificial cervical disc 24 month follow up: clinical and radiographic outcomes from five investigational centers involved in a US FDA approved IDE study. Int Soc Adv Spine Surg. http://www.isass.org/abstracts/isass18-oral-posters/isass18-437-M6-C-Artificial-Cervical-Disc-24-Month-Follow-up-Clinical-and-Radiogr.html
Senouci M, FitzPatrick D, Quinlan JF, Mullett H, Coffey L, McCormack D (2007) Quantification of the coupled motion that occurs with axial rotation and lateral bending of the head-neck complex: an experimental examination. Proc Inst Mech Eng H 221:913–919. https://doi.org/10.1243/09544119JEIM265
Staudt MD, Das K, Duggal N (2018) Does design matter? Cervical disc replacements under review. Neurosurg Rev 41:399–407. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10143-016-0765-0
Thomas S, Willems K, Van den Daelen L, Linden P, Ciocci M-C, Bocher P (2016) The M6-C cervical disk prosthesis: first clinical experience in 33 patients. Clin Spine Surg 29:E182–E187. https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0000000000000025
Yucesoy K, Yuksel K (2017) Can cervical arthroplasty impact alignment? A comparison of the synergy disc with cervical fusion. J Spine 6:1–4. https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/can-cervical-arthroplasty-impact-alignment-a-comparison-of-the-synergy-disc-with-cervical-fusion-2165-7939-1000400.pdf
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Section Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this entry
Cite this entry
Kreitz, T.M., McKenzie, J., Khan, S., Phillips, F.M. (2019). Cervical Total Disc Replacement: Next-Generation Devices. In: Cheng, B. (eds) Handbook of Spine Technology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-33037-2_72-1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-33037-2_72-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-33037-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-33037-2
eBook Packages: Springer Reference Biomedicine and Life SciencesReference Module Biomedical and Life Sciences