Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Polyurethane on titanium unconstrained disc arthroplasty versus anterior discectomy and fusion for the treatment of cervical disc disease: a review of level I–II randomized clinical trials including clinical outcomes

  • Review Article
  • Published:
European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To contrast the clinical and radiologic outcomes and adverse events of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) with a single cervical disc arthroplasty design, the polyurethane on titanium unconstrained cervical disc (PTUCD).

Methods

This is a systematic review of randomized clinical trials (RCT) with evidence level I–II reporting clinical outcomes. After a search on different databases including PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Ovid MEDLINE, a total of 10 RCTs out of 51 studies found were entered in the study. RTCs were searched from the earliest available records in 2005 to November 2014.

Results

Out of a total of 1101 patients, 562 were randomly assigned into the PTUCD arthroplasty group and 539 into the ACDF group. The mean follow-up was 30.9 months. Patients undergoing arthroplasty had lower Neck Disability Index, and better SF-36 Physical component scores than ACDF patients. Patients with PTUCD arthroplasty had also less radiological degenerative changes at the upper adjacent level. Overall adverse events were twice more frequent in patients with ACDF. The rate of revision surgery including both adjacent and index level was slightly higher in patients with ACDF, showing no statistically significant difference.

Conclusions

According to this review, PTUCD arthroplasty showed a global superiority to ACDF in clinical outcomes. The impact of both surgical techniques on the cervical spine (radiological spine deterioration and/or complications) was more severe in patients undergoing ACDF. However, the rate of revision surgeries at any cervical level was equivalent for ACDF and PTUCD arthroplasty.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Goffin J, Geusens E, Vantomme N et al (2004) Long-term follow-up after interbody fusion of the cervical spine. J Spinal Disord Tech 17:79–85

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Yang YC, Nie L, Cheng L, Hou Y (2009) Clinical and radiographic reports following cervical arthroplasty: a 24-month follow-up. Int Orthop 33:1037–1042

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Peng-Fei S, Yu-Hua J (2008) Cervical disc prosthesis replacement and interbody fusion: a comparative study. Int Orthop 32:103–106

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Hilibrand AS, Carlson GD, Palumbo MA, Jones PK, Bohlman HH (1999) Radiculopathy and myelopathy at segments adjacent to the site of a previous anterior cervical arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 81:519–528

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Buchowski JM, Anderson PA, Sekhon L, Riew KD (2009) Cervical disc arthroplasty compared with arthrodesis for the treatment of myelopathy. Surgical technique. J Bone Joint Surg Am 91(Suppl. 2):223–232

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Steinmetz MP, Patel R, Traynelis V, Resnick DK, Anderson PA (2008) Cervical disc arthroplasty compared with fusion in a workers’ compensation population. Neurosurgery 63:741–747 (discussion 747)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Chen J, Wang X, Bai W, Shen X, Yuan W (2012) Prevalence of heterotopic ossification after cervical total disc arthroplasty: a meta-analysis. Eur Spine J 21:674–680

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Bartels RH, Donk R, Verbeek AL (2010) No justification for cervical disk prostheses in clinical practice: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Neurosurgery 66:1153–1160 (discussion 1160)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Rousseau MA, Cottin P, Levante S, Nogier A, Lazennec JY, Skalli W (2008) In vivo kinematics of two types of ball-and-socket cervical disc replacements in the sagittal plane: cranial versus caudal geometric center. Spine 33:E6–E9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Lazaro BC, Yucesoy K, Yuksel KZ, Kowalczyk I, Rabin D, Fink M, Duggal N (2010) Effect of arthroplasty design on cervical spine kinematics: analysis of the Bryan Disc, ProDisc-C, and Synergy disc. Neurosurg Focus 28:1–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Park JJ, Quirno M, Cunningham MR et al (2010) Analysis of segmental cervical spine vertebral motion after prodisc-C cervical disc replacement. Spine 35:E285–E289

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kowalczyk I, Lazaro BC, Fink M, Rabin D, Duggal N (2011) Analysis of in vivo kinematics of 3 different cervical devices: Bryan disc, ProDisc-C, and Prestige LP disc. J Neurosurg Spine 15:630–635

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Chen Y, Yuan W, Wu X et al (2013) The effect of range of motion after single-level discover cervical artificial disk replacement. J Spinal Disord Tech 26:E158–E162

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Ryu WH, Kowalczyk I, Duggal N (2013) Long-term kinematic analysis of cervical spine after single-level implantation of Bryan cervical disc prosthesis. Spine J 13:628–634

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Anderson PA, Sasso RC, Rouleau JP, Carlson CS, Goffin J (2004) The Bryan Cervical Disc: wear properties and early clinical results. Spine J 4:303S–309S

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Papadopoulos S (2005) The Bryan cervical disc system. Neurosurg Clin North Am 16:629–636

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ 339:b2535. doi:10.1136/bmj.b2535

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. http://www.cebm.net/levelsofevidence.asp#levels

  19. Lefebvre C, Clarke MJ (2001) Identifying randomised trials. In: Egger M, Smith D, Altman DG (eds) Systematic reviews in healthcare, 2nd edn. BMJ Publishing Group, London

    Google Scholar 

  20. Bhandari M, Busse JW, Jackowski D et al (2004) Association between industry funding and statistically significant pro-industry findings in medical and surgical randomized trials. CMAJ 170:477–480

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Sterne JAC (2011) Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (eds) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 510 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration

  22. Vernon H, Mior S (1991) The Neck Disability Index: a study of reliability and validity. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 14:409–415

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Carreon LY, Glassman SD, Campbell MJ, Anderson PA (2010) Neck Disability Index, short form-36 physical component summary, and pain scales for neck and arm pain: the minimum clinically important difference and substantial clinical benefit after cervical spine fusion. Spine J 10:469–474

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Hacker RJ (2005) Cervical disc arthroplasty: a controlled randomized prospective study with intermediate follow-up results. J Neurosurg Spine 3:424–428

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Cheng L, Nie L, Zhang L, Hou Y (2009) Fusion versus Bryan Cervical Disc in two-level cervical disc disease: a prospective, randomised study. Int Orthop 33:1347–1351

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Riew KD, Buchowski JM, Sasso R et al (2008) Cervical disc arthroplasty compared with arthrodesis for the treatment of myelopathy. J Bone Joint Surg Am 90:2354–2364

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Kim SW, Limson MA, Kim SB et al (2009) Comparison of radiographic changes after ACDF versus Bryan disc arthroplasty in single and bi-level cases. Eur Spine J 18:218–231

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Garrido BJ, Taha TA, Sasso RC (2010) Clinical outcomes of Bryan cervical disc arthroplasty a prospective, randomized, controlled, single site trial with 48-month follow-up. J Spinal Disord Tech 23:367–371

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Coric D, Cassis J, Carew JD, Boltes MO (2010) Prospective study of cervical arthroplasty in 98 patients involved in 1 of 3 separate investigational device exemption studies from a single investigational site with a minimum 2-year follow-up: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 13:715–721

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Cheng L, Nie L, Li M, Huo Y, Pan X (2011) Superiority of the BRYAN(®) disc prosthesis for cervical myelopathy: a randomized study with 3-year follow-up. Clin Orthop Relat Res 469:3408–3414

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Sasso RC, Anderson PA, Riew KD, Heller JG (2011) Results of cervical arthroplasty compared with anterior discectomy and fusion: four-year clinical outcomes in a prospective randomized controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am 93:1684–1692

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Sun Y, Zhao YB, Pan SF, Zhou FF et al (2012) Comparison of adjacent segment degeneration five years after single level cervical fusion and cervical arthroplasty: a retrospective controlled study. Chin Med J 125:3939–3941

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Zhang X, Zhang X, Chen C et al (2012) Randomized, controlled multicenter, clinical trial comparing BRYAN cervical disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical decompression and fusion in China. Spine 37:433–438

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Young IA, Cleland JA, Michener LA, Brown C (2010) Reliability, construct validity, and responsiveness of the neck disability index, patient-specific functional scale, and numeric pain rating scale in patients with cervical radiculopathy. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 89:831–839

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Alvin MD, Abbott E, Lubelski D et al (2014) Cervical arthroplasty: a critical review of the literature. Spine J 14:2231–2245

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Yin S, Yu X, Zhou S, Yin Z, Qiu Y (2013) Is cervical disc arthroplasty superior to fusion for treatment of symptomatic cervical disc disease? A meta-analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 471:1904–1919

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. McAfee PC, Reah C, Gilder K, Eisermann L, Cunningham B (2012) 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 37:943–952

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Eck JC, Humphreys SC, Lim TH et al (2002) Biomechanical study on the effect of cervical spine fusion on adjacent-level intradiscal pressure and segmental motion. Spine 27:2431–2434

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Ruetten S, Komp M, Merk H, Godolias G (2009) Full-endoscopic anterior decompression versus conventional anterior decompression and fusion in cervical disc herniations. Int Orthop 33:1677–1682

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Liao JC, Niu CC, Chen WJ, Chen LH (2008) Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cage filled with cancellous allograft in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Int Orthop 32:643–648

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Heller JG, Sasso RC, Papadopoulos SM et al (2009) Comparison of BRYAN cervical disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical decompression and fusion: clinical and radiographic results of a randomized, controlled, clinical trial. Spine 34:101–107

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Anderson PA, Sasso RC, Riew KD (2008) Comparison of adverse events between the Bryan artificial cervical disc and anterior cervical arthrodesis. Spine 33:1305–1312

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Gao Y, Liu M, Li T, Huang F, Tang T, Xiang Z (2013) A meta-analysis comparing the results of cervical disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for the treatment of symptomatic cervical disc disease. J Bone Joint Surg Am 95:555–561

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Yi S, Shin DA, Kim KN (2013) The predisposing factors for the heterotopic ossification after cervical artificial disc replacement. Spine J 13:1048–1054

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Yi S, Kim KN, Yang MS (2010) Difference in occurrence of heterotopic ossification according to prosthesis type in the cervical artificial disc replacement. Spine 35:1556–1561

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Pickett GE, Sekhon LH, Sears WR, Duggal N (2006) Complications with cervical arthroplasty. J Neurosurg Spine 4:98–105

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Baron EM, Soliman AM, Gaughan JP et al (2003) Dysphagia, hoarseness, and unilateral true vocal fold motion impairment following anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 112:921–926

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Nandyala SV, Marquez-Lara A, Fineberg SJ, Singh K (2014) Comparison of revision surgeries for one- to two-level cervical TDR and ACDF from 2002 to 2011. Spine J. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2014.03.037

    Google Scholar 

  49. Ruetten S, Komp M, Merk H, Godolias G (2008) Full-endoscopic cervical posterior foraminotomy for the operation of lateral disc herniations using 5.9-mm endoscopes: a prospective, randomized, controlled study. Spine 33:940–948

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Research on Musculoskeletal Disorders, School of Medicine, Valencia Catholic University, Quevedo 2, 46001, Valencia, Spain

    María Aragonés & Carlos Barrios

  2. Spine Surgery Unit, Hospital La Fraternidad, Paseo de la Habana 83-85, 28036, Madrid, Spain

    Eduardo Hevia

Authors
  1. María Aragonés
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Eduardo Hevia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Carlos Barrios
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carlos Barrios.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

None.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Aragonés, M., Hevia, E. & Barrios, C. Polyurethane on titanium unconstrained disc arthroplasty versus anterior discectomy and fusion for the treatment of cervical disc disease: a review of level I–II randomized clinical trials including clinical outcomes. Eur Spine J 24, 2735–2745 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-4228-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-4228-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation