Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Cervical Total Disc Replacement: Evidence Basis

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Handbook of Spine Technology

  • 120 Accesses

Abstract

Anterior cervical decompression and fusion has long been the gold standard for cervical degenerative disc disease, but concerns about the deleterious effects of fusion on adjacent segments have led to the development of cervical total disc replacement (TDR). While many TDR designs have been evaluated, metal-on-polymer and metal-on-metal designs are the most commonly used today. Different types of metals and surface modification have been introduced in attempt to improve osseous integration and decrease failure of implant. Correct positioning, adequate exposure, and thorough decompression and end plate preparation are necessary to ensure proper disc placement. Patients benefit in the postoperative period from early mobilization, improved range of motion, and often return to work earlier, with a lower risk of reoperations than with fusion. Long-term outcomes from many of the IDE trials consistently demonstrate to be comparable and even superior to fusion with cost-effective analysis further supporting financial feasibility.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Ament JD et al (2015) A novel quality-of-life utility index in patients with multilevel cervical degenerative disc disease: comparison of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with total disc replacement. Spine 40(14):1072–1078

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ament JD et al (2016) Cost utility analysis of the cervical artificial disc vs fusion for the treatment of 2-level symptomatic degenerative disc disease: 5-year follow-up. Neurosurgery 79(1):135–145

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Auerbach JD et al (2008) The prevalence of indications and contraindications to cervical total disc replacement. Spine J 8(5):711–716

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Baaj AA et al (2009) History of cervical disc arthroplasty. Neurosurg Focus 27(3):E10

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bohlman HH et al (1993) 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 75(9):1298–1307

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Buchowski JM et al (2009) Cervical disc arthroplasty compared with arthrodesis for the treatment of myelopathy. Surgical technique. J Bone Joint Surg Am 91(Suppl 2):223–232

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Burkus JK et al (2014) 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 21(4):516–528

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cao J-M et al (2011) Clinical and radiological outcomes of modified techniques in Bryan cervical disc arthroplasty. J Clin Neurosci 18(10):1308–1312

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chin-See-Chong TC et al (2017) Current practice of cervical disc arthroplasty: a survey among 383 AOSpine International members. Neurosurg Focus 42(2):E8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cummins BH, Robertson JT, Gill SS (1998) Surgical experience with an implanted artificial cervical joint. J Neurosurg 88(6):943–948

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham BW et al (2009) Bioactive titanium calcium phosphate coating for disc arthroplasty: analysis of 58 vertebral end plates after 6- to 12-month implantation. Spine J 9(10):836–845

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dabrowski B et al (2010) Highly porous titanium scaffolds for orthopaedic applications. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 95(1):53–61

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dejaegher J et al (2017) 10-year follow-up after implantation of the Bryan cervical disc prosthesis. Eur Spine J 26(4):1191–1198

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • DiAngelo DJ et al (2003) Biomechanical testing of an artificial cervical joint and an anterior cervical plate. J Spinal Disord Tech 16(4):314–323

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • DiAngelo DJ et al (2004) In vitro biomechanics of cervical disc arthroplasty with the ProDisc-C total disc implant. Neurosurg Focus 17(3):E7

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dmitriev AE et al (2004) 3. Adjacent level intradiscal pressures following a cervical total disc replacement arthroplasty: an in vitro human cadaveric model. Spine J 4(5):S4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dorr LD et al (2000) Total hip arthroplasty with use of the metasul metal-on-metal articulation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 82(6):789–798

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fayyazi AH et al (2015) Assessment of magnetic resonance imaging artifact following cervical total disc arthroplasty. Int J Spine Surg 9:30

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Fernström U (1966) Arthroplasty with intercorporal endoprothesis in herniated disc and in painful disc. Acta Chir Scand Suppl 357:154–159

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gao F et al (2015) An updated meta-analysis comparing artificial cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for the treatment of cervical degenerative disc disease (CDDD). Spine 40(23):1816–1823

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Goffin J (2006) Complications of cervical disc arthroplasty. Semin Spine Surg 18(2):87–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goffin J et al (2003) Intermediate follow-up after treatment of degenerative disc disease with the Bryan cervical disc prosthesis: single-level and bi-level. Spine 28(24):2673–2678

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gornet MF et al (2015) Cervical disc arthroplasty with Prestige LP disc versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a prospective, multicenter investigational device exemption study. J Neurosurg Spine 23(5):558–573

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gornet MF et al (2017) Cervical disc arthroplasty with the Prestige LP disc versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, at 2 levels: results of a prospective, multicenter randomized controlled clinical trial at 24 months. J Neurosurg Spine 26(6):653–667

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hilibrand AS et al (1999) Radiculopathy and myelopathy at segments adjacent to the site of a previous anterior cervical arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 81(4):519–528

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hisey MS et al (2016) Prospective, randomized comparison of one-level Mobi-C cervical total disc replacement vs. anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: results at 5-year follow-up. Int J Spine Surg 10:10

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Hu Y et al (2016) Mid- to long-term outcomes of cervical disc arthroplasty versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for treatment of symptomatic cervical disc disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of eight prospective randomized controlled trials. PLoS One 11(2):e0149312

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Huppert J et al (2011) Comparison between single- and multi-level patients: clinical and radiological outcomes 2 years after cervical disc replacement. Eur Spine J 20(9):1417–1426

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs JJ et al (1996) Cobalt and chromium concentrations in patients with metal on metal total hip replacements. Clin Orthop Relat Res 329:S256–S263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janssen ME et al (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(21):1738–1747

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson JP et al (2004) Sagittal alignment and the Bryan cervical artificial disc. Neurosurg Focus 17(6):E14

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kato S et al (2017) Comparison of anterior and posterior surgery for degenerative cervical myelopathy: an MRI-based propensity-score-matched analysis using data from the prospective multicenter AOSpine CSM North America and International Studies. J Bone Joint Surg Am 99(12):1013–1021

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kim SW et al (2016) The impact of coronal alignment of device on radiographic degeneration in the case of total disc replacement. Spine J 16(4):470–479

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kotani Y et al (1998) The role of anteromedial foraminotomy and the uncovertebral joints in the stability of the cervical spine. A biomechanical study. Spine 23(14):1559–1565

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lanman TH et al (2017) 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 27(1):7–19

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lee SE, Chung CK, Jahng TA (2012) Early development and progression of heterotopic ossification in cervical total disc replacement. J Neurosurg Spine 16(1):31–36

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lei T et al (2017) Anterior migration after Bryan cervical disc arthroplasty: the relationship between hyperlordosis and its impact on clinical outcomes. World Neurosurg 101:534–539

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Leung C et al (2005) Clinical significance of heterotopic ossification in cervical disc replacement: a prospective multicenter clinical trial. Neurosurgery 57:759–763

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Murrey D et al (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(4):275–286

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nasto LA, Logroscino C (2016) Cervical disc arthroplasty. In: Menchetti P. (eds) Cervical spine. Springer, Cham, pp 193–206

    Google Scholar 

  • Overley, S.C. et al., 2017. The 5-year cost-effectiveness of two-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion or cervical disc replacement: a Markov analysis. Spine J. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2017.06.036

  • Pham V-H (2014) Improving osseointegration of Co-Cr by nanostructured titanium coatings. Springerplus 3:197

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pickett GE, Rouleau JP, Duggal N (2005) Kinematic analysis of the cervical spine following implantation of an artificial cervical disc. Spine 30(17):1949–1954

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Qureshi SA et al (2013) Cost-effectiveness analysis: comparing single-level cervical disc replacement and single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 19(5):546–554

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Radcliff K, Zigler J, Zigler J (2015) Costs of cervical disc replacement versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for treatment of single-level cervical disc disease: an analysis of the Blue Health Intelligence database for acute and long-term costs and complications. Spine 40(8):521–529

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Radcliff K, Lerner J et al (2016a) Seven-year cost-effectiveness of ProDisc-C total disc replacement: results from investigational device exemption and post-approval studies. J Neurosurg Spine 24(5):760–768

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Radcliff K, Coric D, Albert T (2016b) 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 25(2):213–224

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Radcliff K et al (2017) Bias in cervical total disc replacement trials. Curr Rev Musculoskele Med 10(2):170–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rajakumar DV et al (2017) Adjacent-level arthroplasty following cervical fusion. Neurosurg Focus 42(2):E5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rožanković M, Marasanov SM, Vukić M (2017) Cervical disk replacement with discover versus fusion in a single-level cervical disk disease: a prospective single-center randomized trial with a minimum 2-year follow-up. Clin Spine Surg 30(5):E515–E522

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sasso RC et al (2008) Motion analysis of Bryan cervical disc arthroplasty versus anterior discectomy and fusion: results from a prospective, randomized, multicenter, clinical trial. J Spinal Disord Tech 21(6):393–399

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Siskey R et al (2016) Are PEEK-on-ceramic bearings an option for total disc arthroplasty? An in vitro tribology study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 474(11):2428–2440

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Smucker JD, Sasso RC (2011) Cervical disc replacement. In: Rothman Simeone the spine. pp 808–825

    Google Scholar 

  • Traynelis VC (2004) The Prestige cervical disc replacement. Spine J 4(6 Suppl):310S–314S

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Traynelis VC, Leigh BC, Skelly AC (2012) Return to work rates and activity profiles: are there differences between those receiving C-ADR and ACDF? Evid Based Spine Care J 3(S1):47–52

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Urban RM et al (2000) Dissemination of wear particles to the liver, spleen, and abdominal lymph nodes of patients with hip or knee replacement∗. J Bone Joint Surg Am 82(4):457–477

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Walter A (1992) On the material and the tribology of alumina-alumina couplings for hip joint prostheses. Clin Orthop Relat Res 282:31–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu J-C et al (2012) Differences between 1- and 2-level cervical arthroplasty: more heterotopic ossification in 2-level disc replacement: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 16(6):594–600

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wu T-K et al (2017) Multilevel cervical disc replacement versus multilevel anterior discectomy and fusion. Medicine 96(16):e6503

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Xing D et al (2013) A meta-analysis of cervical arthroplasty compared to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for single-level cervical disc disease. J Clin Neurosci 20(7):970–978

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao H et al (2014) Multi-level cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) versus single-level CDA for the treatment of cervical disc diseases: a meta-analysis. Eur Spine J 24(1):101–112

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Zhu Y, Tian Z et al (2016a) Bryan cervical disc arthroplasty versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for treatment of cervical disc diseases. Spine 41(12):E733–E741

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Zhu Y, Zhang B et al (2016b) Cervical disc arthroplasty versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for incidence of symptomatic adjacent segment disease: a meta-analysis of prospective randomized controlled trials. Spine 41(19):1493–1502

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, The Rothman Institute, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Kris E. Radcliff & Daniel A. Tarazona

  2. Department of Orthopaedics, Rowan University School of Osteopathic Medicine, Stratford, NJ, USA

    Michael Markowitz & Edwin Theosmy

Authors
  1. Kris E. Radcliff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Daniel A. Tarazona
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michael Markowitz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Edwin Theosmy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kris E. Radcliff .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Neurosurgery, Allegheny General Hospital Department of Neurosurgery, Mars, PA, USA

    Boyle Cheng

Section Editor information

  1. Department of Neurological Surgery, Carolinas Medical Center, Charlotte, NC, USA

    Domagoj Coric

  2. Carolina Neurosurgery and Spine Associates, Charlotte, NC, USA

    Domagoj Coric

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Radcliff, K.E., Tarazona, D.A., Markowitz, M., Theosmy, E. (2019). Cervical Total Disc Replacement: Evidence Basis. In: Cheng, B. (eds) Handbook of Spine Technology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-33037-2_73-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-33037-2_73-1

  • 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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation