Advertisement

Cervical Disc Arthroplasty

  • Jau-Ching Wu
  • Praveen V. Mummaneni
  • Regis W. HaidEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

Cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) has gained tremendous popularity in recent years because of its preservation of segmental motion and the potential to reduce adjacent segment disease (ASD). Appropriate patient selection is the key to a successful CDA. Cervical arthroplasty should be best reserved for patients with one- or two-level cervical disc disease with radiculopathy or early myelopathy who have no other arthropathy or deformity. Moreover, the CDA only replaces the degenerated and herniated disc that caused radiculopathy and is unlikely to alter or decelerate the natural course of degeneration of both the facet joints at the index level or other adjacent segments.

Keywords

Cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) Adjacent segment disease (ASD) Cervical kyphosis Facet arthropathy Instability 

References

  1. 1.
    Wu JC, Hsieh PC, Mummaneni PV, Wang MY. Spinal motion preservation surgery. BioMed Res Int. 2015;2015:372502. PubMed PMID: 26881197. Pubmed Central PMCID: PMC4736217.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wu JC, Meyer SA, Gandhoke G, Mummaneni PV. PRESTIGE cervical arthroplasty: past, present, and future. Semin Spine Surg. 2012: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wu JC, Liu L, Wen-Cheng H, Chen YC, Ko CC, Wu CL, et al. 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. 2012;70(3):594–601. PubMed PMID: 22343790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wu JC, Huang WC, Tu TH, Tsai HW, Ko CC, Wu CL, et al. Differences between soft-disc herniation and spondylosis in cervical arthroplasty: CT-documented heterotopic ossification with minimum 2 years of follow-up. J Neurosurg Spine. 2012;16(2):163–71. PubMed PMID: 22136390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mummaneni PV, Amin BY, Wu JC, Brodt ED, Dettori JR, Sasso RC. Cervical artificial disc replacement versus fusion in the cervical spine: a systematic review comparing long-term follow-up results from two FDA trials. Evid Based Spine Care J. 2012;3(S1):59–66. PubMed PMID: 23236315. Pubmed Central PMCID: 3519406.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Radcliff K, Coric D, Albert T. 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;25:1–12. PubMed PMID: 27015130.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gornet MF, Burkus JK, Shaffrey ME, Argires PJ, Nian H, Harrell FE Jr. Cervical disc arthroplasty with PRESTIGE LP disc versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a prospective, multicenter investigational device exemption study. J Neurosurg Spine. 2015;31:1–16. PubMed PMID: 26230424.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Burkus JK, Traynelis VC, Haid RW Jr, Mummaneni PV. 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. PubMed PMID: 25036218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Davis RJ, Kim KD, Hisey MS, Hoffman GA, Bae HW, Gaede SE, et al. Cervical total disc replacement with the Mobi-C cervical artificial disc compared with anterior discectomy and fusion for treatment of 2-level symptomatic degenerative disc disease: a prospective, randomized, controlled multicenter clinical trial: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine. 2013;19(5):532–45. PubMed PMID: 24010901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Upadhyaya CD, Wu JC, Trost G, Haid RW, Traynelis VC, Tay B, et al. Analysis of the three United States Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption cervical arthroplasty trials. J Neurosurg Spine. 2012;16(3):216–28. PubMed PMID: 22195608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Quan GM, Vital JM, Hansen S, Pointillart V. Eight-year clinical and radiological follow-up of the Bryan cervical disc arthroplasty. Spine. 2011;36(8):639–46. PubMed PMID: 21178838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Burkus JK, Haid RW, Traynelis VC, Mummaneni PV. 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. 2010;13(3):308–18. PubMed PMID: 20809722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Coric D, Kim PK, Clemente JD, Boltes MO, Nussbaum M, James S. Prospective randomized study of cervical arthroplasty and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with long-term follow-up: results in 74 patients from a single site. J Neurosurg Spine. 2013;18(1):36–42. PubMed PMID: 23140129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Murrey D, Janssen M, Delamarter R, Goldstein J, Zigler J, Tay B, 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. PubMed PMID: 18774751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Heller JG, Sasso RC, Papadopoulos SM, Anderson PA, Fessler RG, Hacker RJ, 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. 2009;34(2):101–7. PubMed PMID: 19112337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mummaneni PV, Burkus JK, Haid RW, Traynelis VC, Zdeblick TA. Clinical and radiographic analysis of cervical disc arthroplasty compared with allograft fusion: a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Neurosurg Spine. 2007;6(3):198–209. PubMed PMID: 17355018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hilibrand AS, Carlson GD, Palumbo MA, Jones PK, Bohlman HH. 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. PubMed PMID: 10225797.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wu JC. Cervical total disc replacement. Formosan J Surg. 2014;47:49–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chang PY, Chang HK, Wu JC, Huang WC, Fay LY, Tu TH, et al. Is cervical disc arthroplasty good for congenital cervical stenosis? J Neurosurg Spine. 2017;10:1–9. PubMed PMID: 28291414.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chang HK, Huang WC, Wu JC, Chang PY, Tu TH, Fay LY, et al. Should cervical disc arthroplasty be done on patients with increased intramedullary signal intensity on magnetic resonance imaging? World Neurosurg. 2016;89:489–96. PubMed PMID: 26893039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Chang HC, Tu TH, Chang HK, Wu JC, Fay LY, Chang PY, et al. Hybrid corpectomy and disc arthroplasty for cervical spondylotic myelopathy caused by ossification of posterior longitudinal ligament and disc herniation. World Neurosurg. 2016;95:22–30. PubMed PMID: 27474455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Chang HK, Chang CC, Tu TH, Wu JC, Huang WC, Fay LY, et al. Can segmental mobility be increased by cervical arthroplasty? Neurosurg Focus. 2017;42(2):E3. PubMed PMID: 28142280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Chang PY, Chang HK, Wu JC, Huang WC, Fay LY, Tu TH, et al. Differences between C3-4 and other subaxial levels of cervical disc arthroplasty: more heterotopic ossification at the 5-year follow-up. J Neurosurg Spine. 2016;24(5):752–9. PubMed PMID: 26824584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tu TH, Chang CC, Wu JC, Fay LY, Huang WC, Cheng H. Resection of uncovertebral joints and posterior longitudinal ligament for cervical disc arthroplasty. Neurosurg Focus. 2017;42(VideoSuppl1):V2. PubMed PMID: 28042720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tu TH, Wu JC, Huang WC, Chang HK, Ko CC, Fay LY, et al. Postoperative nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs and the prevention of heterotopic ossification after cervical arthroplasty: analysis using CT and a minimum 2-year follow-up. J Neurosurg Spine. 2015;22(5):447–53. PubMed PMID: 25723121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wu JC, Huang WC, Tsai HW, Ko CC, Fay LY, Tu TH, et al. Differences between 1- and 2-level cervical arthroplasty: more heterotopic ossification in 2-level disc replacement: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine. 2012;16(6):594–600. PubMed PMID: 22443547.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wu JC, Huang WC, Tsai TY, Fay LY, Ko CC, Tu TH, et al. Multilevel arthroplasty for cervical spondylosis: more heterotopic ossification at 3 years of follow-up. Spine. 2012;37(20):E1251–9. PubMed PMID: 22739672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mummaneni PV, Haid RW. The future in the care of the cervical spine: interbody fusion and arthroplasty. Invited submission from the Joint Section Meeting on Disorders of the Spine and Peripheral Nerves, March 2004. J Neurosurg Spine. 2004;1(2):155–9. PubMed PMID: 15347000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Fay LY, Huang WC, Wu JC, Chang HK, Tsai TY, Ko CC, 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. PubMed PMID: 24926929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Tu TH, Wu JC, Cheng H, Mummaneni PV. Hybrid cervical disc arthroplasty. Neurosurg Focus. 2017;42(VideoSuppl1):V5. PubMed PMID: 28042726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jau-Ching Wu
    • 1
    • 2
  • Praveen V. Mummaneni
    • 3
  • Regis W. Haid
    • 4
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of NeurosurgeryTaipei Veteran’s General HospitalTaipeiTaiwan
  2. 2.School of MedicineNational Yang-Ming UniversityTaipeiTaiwan
  3. 3.Department of Neurological SurgeryUniversity of CaliforniaSan FranciscoUSA
  4. 4.Atlanta Brain and Spine CareAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations