Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Cervical Disc Arthroplasty: A Critical Review and Appraisal of the Latest Available Evidence

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Advances and Technical Standards in Neurosurgery

Part of the book series: Advances and Technical Standards in Neurosurgery ((NEUROSURGERY,volume 41))

Abstract

Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) has been a very successful procedure in the management of cervical radiculopathy and myelopathy. Concerns with adjacent segment disease and the desire to preserve physiological motion have led to technological and clinical efforts for cervical disc arthroplasty. The suggested move to cervical disc replacement has led to this latter procedure being one of the most scrutinised surgical treatments in the twenty-first century. Short- and medium-term prospective randomised clinical trials and systematic reviews show cervical disc replacement to be at least as good as ACDF as regards the clinical outcomes in the management of degenerative cervical spondylosis. This is logical since the neural decompression procedure is essentially the same. However, the rationale for arthroplasty over arthrodesis has been built on two main proposed roles: the preservation of segmental motion and the prevention of adjacent segment disease. Whilst results thus far show that this first role seems to be achieved, its clinical significance is as yet unproven; the second is so far not proven. In addition, the long-term fate of the implants is also unknown. Long-term safety and efficacy, therefore, still await further clinical studies.

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 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
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. Acosta FL Jr, Ames CP (2005) Cervical disc arthroplasty: general introduction. Neurosurg Clin N Am 16(4):603–607

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Anderson PA, Sasso RC, Riew KD (2008) Comparison of adverse events between the Bryan artificial cervical disc and anterior cervical arthrodesis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33(12):1305–1312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Auerbach JD, Jones KJ, Fras CI, Balderston JR, Rushton SA, Chin KR (2008) The prevalence of indications and contraindications to cervical total disc replacement. Spine J 8(5):711–716

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Barbagallo GM, Assietti R, Corbino L, Olindo G, Foti PV, Russo V, Albanese V (2009) Early results and review of the literature of a novel hybrid surgical technique combining cervical arthrodesis and disc arthroplasty for treating multilevel degenerative disc disease: opposite or complementary techniques? Eur Spine J 18(Suppl 1):29–39

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Barbagallo GM, Corbino LA, Olindo G, Albanese V (2010) Heterotopic ossification in cervical disc arthroplasty: is it clinically relevant? Evid Based Spine Care J 1(1):15–20

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Botelho RV, Moraes OJ, Fernandes GA, Buscariolli Ydos S, Bernardo WM (2010) A systematic review of randomized trials on the effect of cervical disc arthroplasty on reducing adjacent-level degeneration. Neurosurg Focus 28(6):E5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Brown CA, Eismont FJ (1998) Complications in spinal fusion. Orthop Clin North Am 29:679–699

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Burkus JK, Haid RW Jr, Traynelis VC, Mummaneni PV (2010) Long-term clinical and radiographic outcomes of cervical disc replacement with the Prestige disc: results from a prospective randomized controlled clinical trial. J Neurosurg Spine 13:308–318

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Cavanaugh DA, Nunley PD, Kerr EJ 3rd, Werner DJ, Jawahar A (2009) Delayed hyper-reactivity to metal ions after cervical disc arthroplasty: a case report and literature review. Spine 34:E262–E265

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Cepoiu-Martin M, Faris P, Lorenzetti D, Prefontaine E, Noseworthy T, Sutherland L (2011) Artificial cervical disc arthroplasty: a systematic review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 36(25):E1623–E1633

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Cheng L, Nie L, Zhang L, Hou Y (2009) Fusion versus Bryan Cervical Disc in two-level cervical disc disease: a prospective, randomised study. Int Orthop 33(5):1347–1351

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Coric D, Nunley PD, Guyer RD, Musante D, Carmody CN, Gordon CR, Lauryssen C, Ohnmeiss DD, Boltes MO (2011) Prospective, randomized, multicenter study of cervical arthroplasty: 269 patients from the Kineflex|C artificial disc investigational device exemption study with a minimum 2-year follow-up: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 15(4):348–358

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Datta J, Janssen M, Beckham R, Ponce C (2007) Sagittal split fractures in multilevel cervical arthroplasty using a keeled prosthesis. J Spinal Disord Tech 20:89–92

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Delamarter RB, Murrey D, Janssen ME, Goldstein JA, Zigler J, Tay B, Darden B II (2010) Results at 24 months from the prospective, randomized, multicenter Investigational Device Exemption trial of ProDisc-C versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with 4-year follow-up and continued access patients. SAS J 4:122–128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Duggal N (2009) Cervical disc arthroplasty: a practical overview. Curr Orthop Pract 20:216–221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Eck JC, Humphreys SC, Lim TH, Jeong ST, Kim JG, Hodges SD, An HS (2002) Biomechanical study on the effect of cervical spine fusion on adjacent-level intradiscal pressure and segmental motion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 27(22):2431–2434

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Floyd T, Ohnmeiss D (2000) A meta-analysis of autograft versus allograft in anterior cervical fusion. Eur Spine J 9:398–403

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Galbusera F, Bellini CM, Brayda-Bruno M, Fornari M (2008) Biomechanical studies on cervical total disc arthroplasty: a literature review. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 23:1095–1104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Goffin J, van Loon J, Van Calenbergh F, Lipscomb B (2010) A clinical analysis of 4- and 6-year follow-up results after cervical disc replacement surgery using the Bryan Cervical Disc Prosthesis. J Neurosurg Spine 12(3):261–269

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Gore DR, Sepic SB (1998) Anterior discectomy and fusion for painful cervical disc disease: a report of 50 patients with an average follow-up of 21 years. Spine 23:2047–2051

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Guyer RD, Shellock J, MacLennan B, Hanscom D, Knight RQ, McCombe P, Jacobs JJ, Urban RM, Bradford D, Ohnmeiss DD (2011) Early failure of metal-on-metal artificial disc prostheses associated with lymphocytic reaction: diagnosis and treatment experience in four cases. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 36(7):E492–E497

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Heller JG, Sasso RC, Papadopoulos SM, Anderson PA, Fessler RG, Hacker RJ, Coric D, Cauthen JC, Riew DK (2009) Comparison of BRYAN cervical disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical decompression and fusion: clinical and radiographic results of a randomized, controlled, clinical trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34(2):101–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 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(4):519–528

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Hilibrand A, Robbins M (2004) Adjacent segment degeneration and adjacent segment disease: the consequences of spinal fusion? Spine J 4:190S–194S

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Huppert J, Beaurain J, Steib JP, Bernard P, Dufour T, Hovorka I, Stecken J, Dam-Hieu P, Fuentes JM, Vital JM, Vila T, Aubourg L (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  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Jaramillo-de la Torre JJ, Grauer JN, Yue JJ (2008) Update on cervical disc arthroplasty: where are we and where are we going? Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 1(2):124–130

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Kepler CK, Brod ED, Dettori JR, Albert TJ (2012) Artificial disc replacement versus fusion in the cervical spine: a systematic review comparing multilevel versus single-level surgery. Evid Based Spine Care J 3(1):1–17

    Google Scholar 

  30. Kim SW, Limson MA, Kim SB, Arbatin JJ, Chang KY, Park MS, Shin JH, Ju YS (2009) Comparison of radiographic changes after ACDF versus Bryan disc arthroplasty in single and bi-level cases. Eur Spine J 18(2):218–231

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Lee MJ, Dumonski M, Phillips FM, Voronov LI, Renner SM, Carandang G, Havey RM, Patwardhan AG (2011) Disc replacement adjacent to cervical fusion: a biomechanical comparison of hybrid construct versus two-level fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 36(23):1932–1939

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Leung C, Casey AT, Goffin J, Kehr P, Liebig K, Lind B, Logroscino C, Pointillart V (2005) Clinical significance of heterotopic ossification in cervical disc replacement: a prospective multicenter clinical trial. Neurosurgery 57(4):759–763; discussion 759–63

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. McAfee PC (2004) The indications for lumbar and cervical disc replacement. Spine J 4(6 Suppl):177S–181S

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. McAfee PC, Cunningham BW, Devine J, Williams E, Yu-Yahiro J (2003) Classification of heterotopic ossification (HO) in artificial disk replacement. J Spinal Disord Tech 16(4):384–389

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. McAfee PC, Cappuccino A, Cunningham BW, Devine JG, Phillips FM, Regan JJ, Albert TJ, Ahrens JE (2010) Lower incidence of dysphagia with cervical arthroplasty compared with ACDF in a prospective randomized clinical trial. J Spinal Disord Tech 23(1):1–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Mehren C, Suchomel P, Grochulla F, Barsa P, Sourkova P, Hradil J, Korge A, Mayer HM (2006) Heterotopic ossification in total cervical artificial disc replacement. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31(24):2802–2806

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Menzin J, Zhang B, Neumann PJ, Lines LM, Polly DW, Barnett-Myers S, Fontes R, Traynelis VC (2010) A health-economic assessment of cervical disc arthroplasty compared with allograft fusion. Tech Orthop 25(2):133–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Murrey D, Janssen M, Delamarter R, Goldstein J, Zigler J, Tay B, Darden B (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 

  40. Nabhan A, Ahlhelm F, Pitzen T, Steudel WI, Jung J, Shariat K, Steimer O, Bachelier F, Pape D (2007) Disc replacement using Pro-Disc C versus fusion: a prospective randomised and controlled radiographic and clinical study. Eur Spine J 16(3):423–430

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Nunley PD, Jawahar A, Kerr EJ 3rd, Gordon CJ, Cavanaugh DA, Birdsong EM, Stocks M, Danielson G (2012) Factors affecting the incidence of symptomatic adjacent-level disease in cervical spine after total disc arthroplasty: 2- to 4-year follow-up of 3 prospective randomized trials. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 37(6):445–451

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Odom GL, Finney W, Woodhall B (1958) Cervical disc lesions. J Am Med Assoc 166:23–28

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Peng CW, Yue WM, Basit A, Guo CM, Tow BP, Chen JL, Nidu M, Yeo W, Tan SB (2011) Intermediate results of the prestige LP cervical disc replacement: clinical and radiological analysis with minimum two-year follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 36(2):E105–E111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Pickett GE, Sekhon LH, Sears WR, Duggal N (2006) Complications with cervical arthroplasty. J Neurosurg Spine 4(2):98–105

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Pimenta L, McAfee PC, Cappuccino A, Cunningham BW, Diaz R, Coutinho E (2007) Superiority of multilevel cervical arthroplasty outcomes versus single-level outcomes: 229 consecutive PCM prostheses. Spine 32(12):1337–1344

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Quan GM, Vital JM, Hansen S, Pointillart V (2011) Eight-year clinical and radiological follow-up of the Bryan cervical disc arthroplasty. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 36(8):639–646

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Reitz H, Joubert MJ (1964) Intractable headache and cervico-brachialgia treated by complete replacement of cervical intervertebral discs with a metal prosthesis. S Afr Med J 38:881–884

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Riew KD, Buchowski JM, Sasso R, Zdeblick T, Metcalf NH, Anderson PA (2008) Cervical disc arthroplasty compared with arthrodesis for the treatment of myelopathy. J Bone Joint Surg Am 90(11):2354–2364

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Robinson R, Smith G (1955) Anterolateral cervical disc removal and interbody fusion for cervical disc syndrome. Bull Johns Hopkins Hosp 96:223–224

    Google Scholar 

  50. Sasso RC, Smucker JD, Hacker RJ, Heller JG (2007) Clinical outcomes of BRYAN cervical disc arthroplasty: a prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter trial with 24-month follow-up. J Spinal Disord Tech 20(7):481–491

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Sasso RC, Anderson PA, Riew KD, Heller JG (2011) Results of cervical arthroplasty compared with anterior discectomy and fusion: four-year clinical outcomes in a prospective, randomized controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am 93(18):1684–1692

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Sekhon LH, Sears W, Duggal N (2005) Cervical arthroplasty after previous surgery: results of treating 24 discs in 15 patients. J Neurosurg Spine 3(5):335–341

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Shim C, Shin H, Lee S (2007) Posterior avulsion fracture at adjacent vertebral body during cervical disc replacement with ProDisc-C. J Spinal Disord Tech 20:468–472

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Shin DA, Yi S, Yoon do H, Kim KN, Shin HC (2009) Artificial disc replacement combined with fusion versus two-level fusion in cervical two-level disc disease. Spine 34:1153–1159

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Steinmetz MP, Patel R, Traynelis V, Resnick DK, Anderson PA (2008) Cervical disc arthroplasty compared with fusion in a workers’ compensation population. Neurosurgery 63(4):741–747; discussion 747

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Suchomel P, Jurák L, Benes V 3rd, Brabec R, Bradác O, Elgawhary S (2010) Clinical results and development of heterotopic ossification in total cervical disc replacement during a 4-year follow-up. Eur Spine J 19(2):307–315

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Tu TH, Wu JC, Fay LY, Ko CC, Huang WC, Cheng H (2012) Vertebral body split fracture after a single-level cervical total disc replacement. J Neurosurg Spine 16(3):231–235

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Tumialán LM, Gluf WM (2011) Progressive vertebral body osteolysis after cervical disc arthroplasty. Spine 36:E973–E978

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Wang X, Chen Y, Chen D, Yuan W, Zhao J, Jia L, Zhao D (2009) Removal of posterior longitudinal ligament in anterior decompression for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J Spinal Disord Tech 22(6):404–407

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Wu JC, Liu L, Wen-Cheng H, Chen YC, Ko CC, Wu CL, Chen TJ, Cheng H, Su TP (2012) The incidence of adjacent segment disease requiring surgery after anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion: estimation using an 11-year comprehensive nationwide database in Taiwan. Neurosurgery 70(3):594–601

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Yang B, Li H, Zhang T, He X, Xu S (2012) The incidence of adjacent segment degeneration after cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA): a meta analysis of randomized controlled trials. PLoS One 7(4):e35032

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Yi S, Shin H, Kim K, Park HK, Jang IT, Yoon do H (2007) Modified techniques to prevent sagittal imbalance after cervical arthroplasty. Spine 32:1986–1991

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Yi S, Ahn PG, Kim DH, Lee DY, Kim KN, Shin HC, Viswanathan A, Yoon DH (2008) Cervical artificial disc replacement, Part 2: clinical experience with the cervical artificial disc. Neurosurg Q 18:96–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Yi S, Kim KN, Yang MS, Yang JW, Kim H, Ha Y, Yoon do H, Shin HC (2010) Difference in occurrence of heterotopic ossification according to prosthesis type in the cervical artificial disc replacement. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35(16):1556–1561

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Zhang X, Zhang X, Chen C, Zhang Y, Wang Z, Wang B, Yan W, Li M, Yuan W, Wang Y (2012) Randomized, controlled, multicenter, clinical trial comparing BRYAN cervical disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical decompression and fusion in China. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 37(6):433–438

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Neurosurgery, Klinikum Rechts der Isar, Technical University Munich, Munich, Germany

    Andreas K. Demetriades FRCS (NeuroSurg.), Florian Ringel & Bernhard Meyer

  2. Department of Neurosurgery, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, UK

    Andreas K. Demetriades FRCS (NeuroSurg.)

Authors
  1. Andreas K. Demetriades FRCS (NeuroSurg.)
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Florian Ringel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Bernhard Meyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andreas K. Demetriades FRCS (NeuroSurg.) .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Neurochirurgische Klinik, Univ.Klinikum Bonn Med. Einrichtungen, Bonn, Germany

    Johannes Schramm

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Demetriades, A.K., Ringel, F., Meyer, B. (2014). Cervical Disc Arthroplasty: A Critical Review and Appraisal of the Latest Available Evidence. In: Schramm, J. (eds) Advances and Technical Standards in Neurosurgery. Advances and Technical Standards in Neurosurgery, vol 41. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01830-0_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01830-0_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-01829-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-01830-0

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation