Advertisement

Cervical disc arthroplasty: tips and tricks

  • Melvin C. Makhni
  • Joseph A. Osorio
  • Paul J. Park
  • Joseph M. Lombardi
  • Kiehyun Daniel Riew
Review
  • 10 Downloads

Abstract

Cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) is a powerful, motion-sparing treatment option for managing cervical radiculopathy or myelopathy. While CDA can be an excellent surgery for properly indicated patients, it is also less forgiving than cervical fusion. Optimally resolving patient symptoms while maintaining range of motion relies on near perfection in the surgical technique. Different CDA options exist on the market, with some having long-term proven success and others in early stages of clinical trials. We discuss the different options available for use, as well as strategies of positioning, approach, disc space preparation, implantation, and fusion prevention that we believe can help improve performance and outcomes of CDA.

Keywords

Cervical disc arthroplasty Cervical disc replacement Artificial disc replacement 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Saifi C, Fein AW, Cazzulino A, Lehman RA, Phillips FM, An HS, Riew KD (2018) Trends in resource utilization and rate of cervical disc arthroplasty and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion throughout the United States from 2006 to 2013. Spine J 18(6):1022–1029CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lu Y, McAnany SJ, Hecht AC, Cho SK, Qureshi SA (2014) Utilization trends of cervical artificial disc replacement after FDA approval compared with anterior cervical fusion: adoption of new technology. Spine 39(3):249–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Arrojas A, Jackson JB, Grabowski G (2017) Trends in the treatment of single and multilevel cervical stenossi: a review of the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery Database. J Bone Joint Surg Am 99(18):e99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nunley PD, Coric D, Frank KA, Stone MB (2018) Cervical disc arthroplasty: current evidence and real-world application. Neurosurgery 1087-1106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Leven D, Meaike J, Radcliff K, Qureshi S (2017) Cervical disc replacement surgery: indications, technique, and technical pearls. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 10(2):160–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Joaquim AF, Riew KD (2017) Multilevel cervical arthroplasty: current evidence. A systematic review. Neurosurg Focus 42(2):E4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    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):711–716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    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):521–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Radcliff K, Davis RJ, Hisey MS, Nunley PD, Hoffman GA, Jackson RJ, Bae HW, Albert T, Coric D (2017) Long-term evaluation of cervical disc arthroplasty with the Mobi-C cervical disc: a randomized, prospective, multicenter clinical trial with seven-year follow-up. Int J Spine Surg 11:31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ning GZ, Kan SL, Zhu RS, Feng SQ (2018) Comparison of Mobi-C cervical disc arthroplasty versus fusion for the treatment of symptomatic cervical degenerative disc disease. World Neurosurg 114:e224–e239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lu H, Peng L (2017) Efficacy and safety of Mobi-C cervical artificial disc versus anterior discectomy and fusion in patients with symptomatic degenerative disc disease. Medicine 96(49):e8504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ghobrial GM, Lavelle WF, Florman JE, Riew KD, Levi AD (2018) Symptomatic adjacent level disease requiring surgery: analysis of 10-year results from a prospective, randomized, clinical trial comparing cervical disc arthroplasty to anterior cervical fusion. NeurosurgeryGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Song Q, He D, Nan X, Zhang N, Wang J, Tian W (2018) Clinical and radiological outcomes of cervical disc arthroplasty: ten year follow-up study. Int Orthop 42(10):2389–2396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lei T, Liu Y, Wang H, Xu J, Ma Q, Wang L, Shen Y (2016) Clinical and radiological analysis of Bryan cervical disc arthroplasty: eight-year follow-up results compared with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Int Orthop 40(6):1197–1203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zigler JE, Delamarter R, Murrey D, Spivak J, Janssen M (2013) ProDisc-C and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion as surgical treatment for single-level cervical symptomatic degenerative dis disease: five-year results of a Food and Drug Administration study. Spine 38(3):203–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Delamarter RB, Zigler J (2013) Five-year reoperation rates, cervical total disc replacement versus fusion, results of a prospective randomized clinical trial. Spine 38(9):711–717CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Janssen ME, Zigler JE, Spivak JM, Delamarter RB, Darden BV, Kopjar B (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):1738–1747CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lou J, Wang B, Wu T, Li H, Liu Z, Liu H (2018) In-vivo study of osseointegration in Prestige LP cervical disc prosthesis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 19(1):42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gao X, Yang Y, Liu H, Meng Y, Zeng J, Wu T, Hong Y (2018) Cervical disc arthroplasty with Prestige-LP for the treatment of contiguous 2-level cervical degenerative disc disease: 5-year follow-up results. Medicine 97(4):e9671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lanman TH, Burkus JK, Dryer RG, Gornet MF, McConnell J, Hodges SD (2017) Long-term clinical and radiographic outcomes of the Prestige LP artificial cervical disc replacement at 2 levels: results form a prospective randomized controlled clinical trial. J Neurosurg Spine 27(1):7–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zeng J, Liu H, Rong X, Wang B, Yang Y, Gao X, Wu T, Hong Y (2018) Clinical and radiographic outcomes of cervical disc arthroplasty with Prestige-LP disc: a minimum 6-year follow-up study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 19(1):285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Vaccaro A, Beutler W, Peppelman W, Marzluff JM, Highsmith J, Mugglin A, DeMuth G, Gudipally M, Baker KJ (2013) Clinical outcomes with selectively constrained SECURE-C cervical disc arthroplasty: two-year results from a prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter investigational device exemption study. Spine 38(26):2227–2239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Vaccaro A, Beutler W, Peppelman W, Marzluff JM, Mugglin A, Ramakrishnan PS, Myer J, Baker KJ (2018) Long-term clinical experience with selectively constrained SECURE-C cervical artificial disc for 1-level cervical disc disease: results from seven-year follow-up of a prospective, randomized, controlled investigational device exemption clinical trial. Int J Spine Surg 12(3):377–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Reyes-Sanchez A, Miramontes V, Olivarez LM, Aquirre AA, Quiroz AO, Zarate-Kalfopoulos B (2010) Initial clinical experience with a next-generation artificial disc for the treatment of symptomatic degenerative cervical radiculopathy. SAS J 4(1):9–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Thomas S, Willems K, Van den Daelen L, Linden P, Ciocci MC, Bocher P (2016) The M6-C cervical disk prosthesis: first clinical experience in 33 patients. Clin Spine Surg 29(4):e182–e187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Skeppholm M, Lindgren L, Henriques T, Vavruch L, Lofgren H, Olerud C (2015) The Discover artificial disc replacement versus fusion in cervical radiculopathy—a randomized controlled outcome trial with 2-year follow-up. Spine J 15(6):1284–1294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rozankovic M, Marasanov SM, Vukic M (2017) Cervical disc 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–e522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Reinke A, Behr M, Preuss A, Villard J, Meyer B, Ringel F (2017) Return to sports after cervical total disc replacement. World Neurosurg 97:241–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gornet MF, Lanman TH, Burkus JK, Hodges SD, McConnell JR, Dryer RF, Copay AG, Nian H, Harrell FE (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):653–667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Zou S, Gao J, Xu B, Lu X, Han Y, Meng H (2017) Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) versus cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) for two contiguous levels cervical disc degenerative disease: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Eur Spine J 26(4):985–997CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hu Y, Lv G, Ren S, Johansen D (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):e0149312CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© SICOT aisbl 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Melvin C. Makhni
    • 1
  • Joseph A. Osorio
    • 2
  • Paul J. Park
    • 2
  • Joseph M. Lombardi
    • 2
  • Kiehyun Daniel Riew
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Brigham and Women’s HospitalHarvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Daniel and Jane Och Spine HospitalColumbia University Medical CenterNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations