Cervical Spine pp 193-206 | Cite as

Cervical Disc Arthroplasty

  • Luigi Aurelio Nasto
  • Carlo LogroscinoEmail author


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.


Heterotopic Ossification Cervical Disc Cervical Myelopathy Disc Replacement Adjacent Segment Degeneration 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baba H, et al. Late radiographic findings after anterior cervical fusion for spondylotic myeloradiculopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1993;18(15):2167–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Baaj AA, et al. History of cervical disc arthroplasty. Neurosurg Focus. 2009;27(3):E10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fernstrom U. Arthroplasty with intercorporal endoprothesis in herniated disc and in painful disc. Acta Chir Scand Suppl. 1966;357:154–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cummins BH, Robertson JT, Gill SS. Surgical experience with an implanted artificial cervical joint. J Neurosurg. 1998;88(6):943–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Duggal N, et al. Early clinical and biomechanical results following cervical arthroplasty. Neurosurg Focus. 2004;17(3):E9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sekhon LH. Cervical arthroplasty in the management of spondylotic myelopathy: 18-month results. Neurosurg Focus. 2004;17(3):E8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Goffin J, et al. Preliminary clinical experience with the Bryan Cervical Disc Prosthesis. Neurosurgery. 2002;51(3):840–5; discussion 845–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Bertagnoli R, et al. Early results after ProDisc-C cervical disc replacement. J Neurosurg Spine. 2005;2(4):403–10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Fountas KN, et al. Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion associated complications. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007;32(21):2310–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Mehren C, et al. Heterotopic ossification in total cervical artificial disc replacement. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006;31(24):2802–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Johnson JP, et al. Sagittal alignment and the Bryan cervical artificial disc. Neurosurg Focus. 2004;17(6):E14.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Pickett GE, et al. Effects of a cervical disc prosthesis on segmental and cervical spine alignment. Neurosurg Focus. 2004;17(3):E5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Xu JX, et al. Effect of modified techniques in Bryan cervical disc arthroplasty. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009;34(10):1012–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Anderson PA, et al. Wear analysis of the Bryan Cervical Disc prosthesis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003;28(20):S186–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Anderson PA, et al. The Bryan Cervical Disc: wear properties and early clinical results. Spine J. 2004;4(6 Suppl):303S–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Puttlitz CM, et al. Intervertebral disc replacement maintains cervical spine kinetics. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004;29(24):2809–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedics and TraumatologyCatholic University of Rome, “A. Gemelli” University HospitalRomeItaly
  2. 2.The Centre for Spinal Studies and Surgery, Queen’s Medical CentreNottingham University Hospitals NHS TrustNottinghamUK

Personalised recommendations