Advertisement

Surgical Technique for a Cervical Disc Arthroplasty

  • Gregory D. Schroeder
  • Alan S. Hilibrand
Chapter

Abstract

Total disc replacement in the cervical spine is an excellent treatment for patients with symptoms of cervical radiculopathy or myelopathy with concordant findings on advance imaging studies (computed tomography (CT) myelogram or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)) at two or fewer levels. For operative planning, upright anterior-posterior (AP), lateral, flexion, and extension radiographs should be obtained. To be a candidate for a CDR, patients should have a neutral or lordotic cervical spine without significant spondylosis. Specifically, patients should have no bridging osteophytes, signs of instability, or loss of more than 50% of the disc height at a normal level. Additionally, it is critical that all compression is at the intervertebral disc space, because the decompression for a CDR does not allow for resection of portions of the vertebral body. For patients who meet these criteria, a cervical disc replacement can provide excellent improvements in health-related quality of life.

Bibliography

  1. 1.
    Hu Y, et al. 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. 2016;11(2):e0149312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Radcliff K, et al. 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. 2016;25(2):213–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ren C, et al. Mid- to long-term outcomes after cervical disc arthroplasty compared with anterior discectomy and fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Eur Spine J. 2014;23(5):1115–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Buchowski JM, et al. Cervical disc arthroplasty compared with arthrodesis for the treatment of myelopathy. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(Suppl 2):223–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Burkus JK, et al. 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. 2014;21(4):516–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gregory D. Schroeder
    • 1
  • Alan S. Hilibrand
    • 1
  1. 1.The Rothman Institute at Thomas Jefferson UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations