Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Cervical Disc Arthroplasty

  • Chapter
Cervical Spine

  • 2199 Accesses

Abstract

Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is a common surgical procedure for treatment of cervical radiculopathy and myelopathy due to cervical disc disease. Although it is a generally successful and safe procedure (complication rate between 2 and 4%), more recent studies have raised concerns regarding alterations of cervical spine biomechanics following a fusion. The fusion of a cervical segment leads to increased stress and loading on the adjacent segments which in turn can accelerate the degeneration process. Current estimates suggest that 25% of patients treated with ACDF will develop adjacent segment degeneration at 10 years (3% per year) and half of these patients will require new surgical intervention. Cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) was developed as an alternative procedure to preserve motion both at the affected and adjacent levels and theoretically lower rates of adjacent segment degeneration. Prospective randomized trials comparing ACDF with CDA were initiated in 2000 and have demonstrated significant differences in some clinical outcome measures favouring CDA and comparable safety profiles between the two techniques. Following these trials many different devices have been licensed and are currently available on the market. The typical candidate patient for CDA is the young active adult patient with single level symptomatic disc disease and with intact posterior facet joints. The aim of this chapter is to critically review available literature supporting clinical use of CDA. Cervical disc replacement is nowadays an accepted technique with established short and medium-term follow-up data, however only long-term data will be able to confirm the promise of decreased adjacent segment disease and lower reoperation rate.

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 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight 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. Bohlman HH, et al. 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.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Hilibrand AS, et al. 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.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Baba H, et al. Late radiographic findings after anterior cervical fusion for spondylotic myeloradiculopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1993;18(15):2167–73.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Gore DR, Sepic SB. Anterior cervical fusion for degenerated or protruded discs. A review of one hundred forty-six patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1984;9(7):667–71.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Goffin J, et al. Long-term follow-up after interbody fusion of the cervical spine. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2004;17(2):79–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Matsumoto M, et al. Anterior cervical decompression and fusion accelerates adjacent segment degeneration: comparison with asymptomatic volunteers in a ten-year magnetic resonance imaging follow-up study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010;35(1):36–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Boden SD, et al. Abnormal magnetic-resonance scans of the cervical spine in asymptomatic subjects. A prospective investigation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1990;72(8):1178–84.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Henderson CM, et al. Posterior-lateral foraminotomy as an exclusive operative technique for cervical radiculopathy: a review of 846 consecutively operated cases. Neurosurgery. 1983;13(5):504–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Nassr A, et al. Does incorrect level needle localization during anterior cervical discectomy and fusion lead to accelerated disc degeneration? Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009;34(2):189–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Kim HJ, et al. The risk of adjacent-level ossification development after surgery in the cervical spine: are there factors that affect the risk? a systematic review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012;37(22 Suppl):S65–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Park JB, Cho YS, Riew KD. Development of adjacent-level ossification in patients with an anterior cervical plate. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87(3):558–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Dmitriev AE, et al. Adjacent level intradiscal pressure and segmental kinematics following a cervical total disc arthroplasty: an in vitro human cadaveric model. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005;30(10):1165–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Park JY, et al. New prognostic factors for adjacent-segment degeneration after one-stage 360 degrees fixation for spondylolytic spondylolisthesis: special reference to the usefulness of pelvic incidence angle. J Neurosurg Spine. 2007;7(2):139–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Sudo H, et al. Biomechanical study on the effect of five different lumbar reconstruction techniques on adjacent-level intradiscal pressure and lamina strain. J Neurosurg Spine. 2006;5(2):150–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Barrey C, et al. Sagittal balance of the pelvis-spine complex and lumbar degenerative diseases. A comparative study about 85 cases. Eur Spine J. 2007;16(9):1459–67.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Ozer E, et al. Kyphosis one level above the cervical disc disease: is the kyphosis cause or effect? J Spinal Disord Tech. 2007;20(1):14–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Fernstrom U. Arthroplasty with intercorporal endoprothesis in herniated disc and in painful disc. Acta Chir Scand Suppl. 1966;357:154–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Cummins BH, Robertson JT, Gill SS. Surgical experience with an implanted artificial cervical joint. J Neurosurg. 1998;88(6):943–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Duggal N, et al. Early clinical and biomechanical results following cervical arthroplasty. Neurosurg Focus. 2004;17(3):E9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Sekhon LH. Cervical arthroplasty in the management of spondylotic myelopathy: 18-month results. Neurosurg Focus. 2004;17(3):E8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Fay LY, et al. Arthroplasty for cervical spondylotic myelopathy: similar results to patients with only radiculopathy at 3 years’ follow-up. J Neurosurg Spine. 2014;21(3):400–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Goffin J, et al. Preliminary clinical experience with the Bryan Cervical Disc Prosthesis. Neurosurgery. 2002;51(3):840–5; discussion 845–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Goffin J, et al. Intermediate follow-up after treatment of degenerative disc disease with the Bryan Cervical Disc Prosthesis: single-level and bi-level. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003;28(24):2673–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Lafuente J, et al. The Bryan cervical disc prosthesis as an alternative to arthrodesis in the treatment of cervical spondylosis: 46 consecutive cases. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005;87(4):508–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Sasso RC, et al. Artificial disc versus fusion: a prospective, randomized study with 2-year follow-up on 99 patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007;32(26):2933–40; discussion 2941–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Sasso RC, Foulk DM, Hahn M. Prospective, randomized trial of metal-on-metal artificial lumbar disc replacement: initial results for treatment of discogenic pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008;33(2):123–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Heller JG, 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 (Phila Pa 1976). 2009;34(2):101–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Murrey D, 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Bertagnoli R, et al. Early results after ProDisc-C cervical disc replacement. J Neurosurg Spine. 2005;2(4):403–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. McAfee PC, et al. A meta-analysis of comparative outcomes following cervical arthroplasty or anterior cervical fusion: results from 4 prospective multicenter randomized clinical trials and up to 1226 patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012;37(11):943–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Fountas KN, et al. Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion associated complications. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007;32(21):2310–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Leung C, et al. Clinical significance of heterotopic ossification in cervical disc replacement: a prospective multicenter clinical trial. Neurosurgery. 2005;57(4):759–63; discussion 759–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Mehren C, et al. Heterotopic ossification in total cervical artificial disc replacement. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006;31(24):2802–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Suchomel P, et al. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Yi S, et al. Radiologically documented adjacent-segment degeneration after cervical arthroplasty: characteristics and review of cases. Surg Neurol. 2009;72(4):325–9; discussion 329.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Chen J, et al. Prevalence of heterotopic ossification after cervical total disc arthroplasty: a meta-analysis. Eur Spine J. 2012;21(4):674–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Pickett GE, et al. Effects of a cervical disc prosthesis on segmental and cervical spine alignment. Neurosurg Focus. 2004;17(3):E5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Troyanovich SJ, et al. Does anterior plating maintain cervical lordosis versus conventional fusion techniques? a retrospective analysis of patients receiving single-level fusions. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2002;15(1):69–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Xu JX, et al. Effect of modified techniques in Bryan cervical disc arthroplasty. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009;34(10):1012–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Datta JC, et al. Sagittal split fractures in multilevel cervical arthroplasty using a keeled prosthesis. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2007;20(1):89–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Shim CS, Shin HD, Lee SH. Posterior avulsion fracture at adjacent vertebral body during cervical disc replacement with ProDisc-C: a case report. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2007;20(6):468–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Goodman SB, et al. Cellular profile and cytokine production at prosthetic interfaces. Study of tissues retrieved from revised hip and knee replacements. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1998;80(3):531–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Cavanaugh DA, et al. Delayed hyper-reactivity to metal ions after cervical disc arthroplasty: a case report and literature review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009;34(7):E262–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Guyer RD, et al. Early failure of metal-on-metal artificial disc prostheses associated with lymphocytic reaction: diagnosis and treatment experience in four cases. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011;36(7):E492–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Lebl DR, et al. In vivo functional performance of failed Prodisc-L devices: retrieval analysis of lumbar total disc replacements. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012;37(19):E1209–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Anderson PA, et al. Wear analysis of the Bryan Cervical Disc prosthesis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003;28(20):S186–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Anderson PA, et al. The Bryan Cervical Disc: wear properties and early clinical results. Spine J. 2004;4(6 Suppl):303S–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. DiAngelo DJ, et al. Biomechanical testing of an artificial cervical joint and an anterior cervical plate. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2003;16(4):314–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Wigfield CC, et al. Internal stress distribution in cervical intervertebral discs: the influence of an artificial cervical joint and simulated anterior interbody fusion. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2003;16(5):441–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Pickett GE, Rouleau JP, Duggal N. Kinematic analysis of the cervical spine following implantation of an artificial cervical disc. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005;30(17):1949–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Puttlitz CM, et al. Intervertebral disc replacement maintains cervical spine kinetics. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004;29(24):2809–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Sasso RC, et al. Motion analysis of bryan cervical disc arthroplasty versus anterior discectomy and fusion: results from a prospective, randomized, multicenter, clinical trial. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2008;21(6):393–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Chang UK, et al. Range of motion change after cervical arthroplasty with ProDisc-C and prestige artificial discs compared with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. J Neurosurg Spine. 2007;7(1):40–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Singh K, Vaccaro AR, Albert TJ. Assessing the potential impact of total disc arthroplasty on surgeon practice patterns in North America. Spine J. 2004;4(6 Suppl):195S–201.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Qureshi SA, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis: comparing single-level cervical disc replacement and single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine. 2013;19(5):546–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Warren D, et al. Cost-utility analysis of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion versus cervical disc arthroplasty. Evid Based Spine Care J. 2011;2(3):57–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Catholic University of Rome, “A. Gemelli” University Hospital, l.go Agostino Gemelli 8, Rome, 00168, Italy

    Luigi Aurelio Nasto MD & Carlo Logroscino MD

  2. The Centre for Spinal Studies and Surgery, Queen’s Medical Centre, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Derby Road, NG7 2UH, Nottingham, UK

    Luigi Aurelio Nasto MD

Authors
  1. Luigi Aurelio Nasto MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Carlo Logroscino MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carlo Logroscino MD .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Spine Center, Rome American Hospital, Rome, Italy

    Pier Paolo Maria Menchetti

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Nasto, L.A., Logroscino, C. (2016). Cervical Disc Arthroplasty. In: Menchetti, P. (eds) Cervical Spine. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21608-9_16

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21608-9_16

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-21607-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-21608-9

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation