Top

Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine

Published in:

01-06-2017 | Motion Preserving Spine Surgery (C Kepler, section editor)

Cervical disc replacement surgery: indications, technique, and technical pearls

Authors: Dante Leven, Joshua Meaike, Kris Radcliff, Sheeraz Qureshi

Published in: Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine | Issue 2/2017

Abstract

Purpose of review

Cervical disc replacement (CDR) is a surgical option for appropriately indicated patients, and high success rates have been reported in the literature. Complications and failures are often associated with patient indications or technical variables, and the goal of this review is to assist surgeons in understanding these factors.

Recent findings

Several investigations have been published in the last 5 years supporting the use of CDR in specific patient populations. CDR has been shown to be comparable or favorable to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion in several meta-analyses and mid-term follow-up studies.

Summary

CDR was developed as a technique to preserve motion following a decompression procedure while minimizing several of the complications associated with fusion and posterior cervical spine procedures. Though success with cervical fusion and posterior foraminotomy has been well documented in the literature, high rates of mid- and long-term complications have been clearly established. CDR has also been associated with several complications and challenges with regard to surgical technique, though improvements in implant design have lead to an increase in utilization. Several devices currently exist and vary in terms of material, design, and outcomes. This review paper discusses indications, surgical technique, and technical pearls and reviews the CDR devices currently available.

Edwards 2nd CC, Heller JG, Murakami H. Corpectomy versus laminoplasty for multilevel cervical myelopathy: an independent matched-cohort analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2002;27(11):1168–75.CrossRef

Bohlman HH, Anderson PA. Anterior decompression and arthrodesis of the cervical spine: long-term motor improvement. Part I—improvement in incomplete traumatic quadriparesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1992;74(5):671–82.CrossRefPubMed

Seng C, Tow BP, Siddiqui MA, Srivastava A, Wang L, Yew AK, Yeo W, Khoo SH, Balakrishnan NM, Bin Abd Razak HR, Chen JL, Guo CM, Tan SB, Yue WM. Surgically treated cervical myelopathy: a functional outcome comparison study between multilevel anterior cervical decompression fusion with instrumentation and posterior laminoplasty. Spine J. 2013;13(7):723–31. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2013.02.038.CrossRefPubMed

Bydon M, Mathios D, Macki M, de la Garza-Ramos R, Sciubba DM, Witham TF, Wolinsky JP, Gokaslan ZL, Bydon A. Long-term patient outcomes after posterior cervical foraminotomy: an analysis of 151 cases. J Neurosurg Spine. 2014;21(5):727–31. doi:10.3171/2014.7.SPINE131110.CrossRefPubMed

Radhakrishnan K, Litchy WJ, O’Fallon WM, Kurland LT. Epidemiology of cervical radiculopathy. A population-based study from Rochester, Minnesota, 1976 through 1990. Brain. 1994;117(Pt 2):325–35. doi:10.1093/brain/117.2.325.CrossRefPubMed

Matsunaga S, Kabayama S, Yamamoto T, Yone K, Sakou T, et al. Strain on intervertebral discs after anterior cervical decompression and fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1999;24(7):670–5.CrossRef

Robertson JT, Papadopoulos SM, Traynelis VC. Assessment of adjacent-segment disease in patients treated with cervical fusion or arthroplasty: a prospective 2-year study. J Neurosurg Spine. 2005;3(6):417–23.CrossRefPubMed

•• Zhong ZM, Zhu SY, Zhuang JS, Wu Q, Chen JT. Reoperation after cervical disc arthroplasty versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a meta-analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2016;474(5):1307–16. doi:10.1007/s11999-016-4707-5. This large met-analysis of over 3200 patients in 12 randomized control studies showed lower reoperation rates in patients undergoing CDR (6%) compared with ACDF (12%) which was statistically significant. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Reitz H, Joubert MJ. Intractable headache and cervico-brachialgia treated by complete replacement of cervical intervertebral discs with a metal prosthesis. S Afr Med J. 1964;38:881–4.PubMed

10.

Fernström U. Arthroplasty with intercorporal endoprosthesis in herniated disc and in painful disc. Acta Chir Scand Suppl. 1966;357:154–9.PubMed

11.

Delamarter RB, Zigler J. Five-year reoperation rates, cervical total disc replacement versus fusion, results of a prospective randomized clinical trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013;38(9):711–7. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182797592.CrossRef

12.

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(2):213–24. doi:10.3171/2015.12.SPINE15824.CrossRefPubMed

13.

•• Luo J, Huang S, Gong M, Dai X, Gao M, Yu T, Zhou Z, Zou X. Comparison of artificial cervical arthroplasty versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for one-level cervical degenerative disc disease: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2015;25(Suppl 1):S115–25. doi:10.1007/s00590-014-1510-4. This meta-analysis of 13 randomized studies showed favorable outcomes in patients with single-level cervical disc degeneration treated with CDR over ACDF. Superior outcomes scores, lower pain scores, less reoperations, and greater ROM were all noted at 24 months. CrossRefPubMed

14.

Murrey D, Janssen M, Delamarter R, Goldstein J, Zigler J, Tay B, Darden B. 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. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2008.05.006.CrossRefPubMed

15.

Davis RJ, Nunley PD, Kim KD, Hisey MS, Jackson RJ, Bae HW, Hoffman GA, Gaede SE, Danielson 3rd GO, Gordon C, Stone MB. Two-level total disc replacement with Mobi-C cervical artificial disc versus anterior discectomy and fusion: a prospective, randomized, controlled multicenter clinical trial with 4-year follow-up results. J Neurosurg Spine. 2015;22(1):15–25. doi:10.3171/2014.7.SPINE13953.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Puttlitz CM, Rousseau MA, Xu Z, Hu S, Tay BK, et al. Intervertebral disc replacement maintains cervical spine kinetics. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004;29(24):2809–14. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000147739.42354.a9.CrossRef

17.

DiAngelo DJ, Foley KT, Morrow BR, Schwab JS, Song J, et al. In vitro biomechanics of cervical disc arthroplasty with the ProDisc-C total disc implant. Neurosurg Focus. 2004;17(3):E7.PubMed

18.

Zhou HH, Qu Y, Dong RP, Kang MY, Zhao JW. Does heterotopic ossification affect the outcomes of cervical total disc replacement? A meta-analysis Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015;40(6):E332–40. doi:10.1097/BRS.0000000000000776.CrossRef

19.

Verma K, Gandhi SD, Maltenfort M, Albert TJ, Hilibrand AS, Vaccaro AR, Radcliff KE. Rate of adjacent segment disease in cervical disc arthroplasty versus single-level fusion: meta-analysis of prospective studies. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013;38(26):2253–7. doi:10.1097/BRS.0000000000000052.CrossRef

20.

Lee JC, Lee SH, Peters C, Riew KD. Risk-factor analysis of adjacent-segment pathology requiring surgery following anterior, posterior, fusion, and nonfusion cervical spine operations: survivorship analysis of 1358 patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014;96(21):1761–7. doi:10.2106/JBJS.M.01482.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Wu JC, Huang WC, Tsai HW, Ko CC, Fay LY, Tu TH, Wu CL, Cheng H. 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. doi:10.3171/2012.2.SPINE111066.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Yi S, Kim KN, Yang MS, Yang JW, Kim H, Ha Y, Yoon DH, Shin HC. Difference in occurrence of heterotopic ossification according to prosthesis type in the cervical artificial disc replacement. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010;35(16):1556–61. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181c6526b.CrossRef

23.

Yi S, Shin DA, Kim KN, Choi G, Shin HC, Kim KS, Yoon DH. The predisposing factors for the heterotopic ossification after cervical artificial disc replacement. Spine J. 2013;13(9):1048–54. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2013.02.036.CrossRefPubMed

24.

Nunley PD, Jawahar A, Kerr 3rd EJ, Gordon CJ, Cavanaugh DA, Birdsong EM, Stocks M, Danielson G. Factors affecting the incidence of symptomatic adjacent-level disease in cervical spine after total disc arthroplasty: 2- to 4-year follow-up of 3 prospective randomized trials. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012;37(6):445–51. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e31822174b3.CrossRef

25.

Buchowski J, Riew K: Primary indications and disc space preparation for cervical disc arthroplasty. In: Yue J, editors. Motion preservation surgery of the spine: advanced techniques and controversies. Saunders/Elsevier; 2008.

26.

Ding D, Shaffrey ME. Cervical disk arthroplasty: patient selection. Clin Neurosurg. 2012;59:91–7.CrossRefPubMed

27.

Goffin J. Complications of cervical disc arthroplasty. Semin Spine Surg. 2006;18:87–97.CrossRef

28.

Beaurin J, Bernard P, Dufour T, Fuentes J, Hovorka I, Huppert J, Steib J, Vital J. Mobi-C. In: Yue J, editor. Motion preservation surgery of the spine: advanced techniques and controversies. Philadelphia: Saunders/Elsevier; 2008.

29.

Stieber J, Fischgrund J, Abitbol J. The cervicore cervical intervertebral disc replacement. In: Yue J, editor. Motion preservation surgery of the spine: advanced techniques and controversies. Philadelphia: Saunders/Elsevier; 2008.

30.

Fassett D, Jeyamohan S, Vaccaro A, Whang P. Mobi-C. In: Yue J, editor. Motion preservation surgery of the spine: advanced techniques and controversies. Philadelphia: Saunders/Elsevier; 2008.

31.

Skeppholm M, Olerud C. Comparison of dysphagia between cervical artificial disc replacement and fusion: data from a randomized controlled study with two years of follow-up. Spine (Phiila Pa 1976). 2013;38(24):E1507–10. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182a516ef.CrossRef

32.

Loret JE, Francois P, Papagiannaki C, Cottier JP, Terrier LM, Zemmoura I. Internal carotid artery dissection after anterior cervical disc replacement: first case report and literature review of vascular complications of the approach. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2013;23(Suppl 1):S107–10. doi:10.1007/s00590-013-1228-8.CrossRefPubMed

33.

Viezens L, Schaefer C, Beyerlein J, Thietje R, Hansen-Algenstaedt N. An incomplete paraplegia following the dislocation of an artificial cervical total disc replacement. J Neurosurg Spine. 2013;18(3):255–9. doi:10.3171/2013.1.SPINE12691.CrossRefPubMed

34.

Heary RF, Goldstein IM, Getto KM, Agarwal N. Solid radiographic fusion with a nonconstrained device 5 years after cervical arthroplasty. J Neurosurg Spine. 2014;21(6):951–5. doi:10.3171/2014.8.SPINE14101.CrossRefPubMed

35.

Mehren C, Suchomel P, Grochulla F, Barsa P, Sourkova P, Hradil J, Korge A, Mayer HM. Heterotopic ossification in total cervical artificial disc replacement. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006;31(24):2802–6.CrossRef

36.

Chen J, Wang X, Bai W, Shen X, Yuan W. Prevalence of heterotopic ossification after cervical total disc arthroplasty: a meta-analysis. Eur Spine J. 2012;21(4):674–80. doi:10.1007/s00586-011-2094-x.CrossRefPubMed

37.

Nunley PD, Jawahar A, Cavanaugh DA, Gordon CR, Kerr 3rd EJ, Utter PA. Symptomatic adjacent segment disease after cervical total disc replacement: re-examining the clinical and radiological evidence with established criteria. Spine J. 2013;13(1):5–12. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2012.11.032.CrossRefPubMed

38.

Orndorff D, Poelstra K, Albert T. Discover artificial cervical disc. In: Yue J, editor. Motion preservation surgery of the spine: advanced techniques and controversies. Philadelphia: Saunders/Elsevier; 2008.

39.

Coric D, Oberer D. Cervical approaches. In: Yue J, editor. Motion preservation surgery of the spine: advanced techniques and controversies. Philadelphia: Saunders/Elsevier; 2008.

40.

Pearson A, Albert T: Cervical and cervicothoracic instrumentation. In: Patel V, editors. Spine surgery basics. Springer; 2014.

41.

Grochulla F: Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. In: Vieweg U, Grochulla F, editors. Manual of spine surgery. Springer; 2012.

42.

Sasso R, Martin L. The Bryan artificial disc. In: Yue J, editor. Motion preservation surgery of the spine: advanced techniques and controversies. Philadelphia: Saunders/Elsevier; 2008.

43.

Zhao Y, Zhang Y, Sun Y, Pan S, Zhou F, Liu Z. Application of cervical arthroplasty with Bryan cervical disc: 10-year follow-up results in China. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016;41(2):111–5. doi:10.1097/BRS.0000000000001145.CrossRef

44.

Zhu Y, Tian Z, Zhu B, Zhang W, Li Y, Zhu Q. Bryan cervical disc arthroplasty versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for treatment of cervical disc diseases: a meta-analysis of prospective, randomized controlled trials. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016;41(12):E733–41. doi:10.1097/BRS.0000000000001367.CrossRef

45.

Skeppholm M, Lindgren L, Henriques T, Vavruch L, Löfgren H, Olerud C. The Discover artificial disc replacement versus fusion in cervical radiculopathy—a randomized controlled outcome trial with 2-year follow-up. Spine J. 2015;15(6):1284–94. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2015.02.039.CrossRefPubMed

46.

Hisey MS, Zigler JE, Jackson R, Nunley PD, Bae HW, Kim KD, Ohnmeiss DD. Prospective, randomized comparison of one-level Mobi-C cervical total disc replacement vs. anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: results at 5-year follow-up. Int J Spine Surg. 2016;10:10. doi:10.14444/3010.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

47.

Traynelis V. The prestige cervical disc. In: Yue J, editor. Motion preservation surgery of the spine: advanced techniques and controversies. Philadelphia: Saunders/Elsevier; 2008.

48.

Gornet MF, Burkus JK, Shaffrey ME, Nian H, Harrell Jr FE. Cervical disc arthroplasty with prestige LP disc versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: seven-year outcomes. Int J Spine Surg. 2016;10:24. doi:10.14444/3024.PubMedPubMedCentral

49.

Delamarter R, Pradhan B. ProDisc-C total cervical disc replacement. In: Yue J, editor. Motion preservation surgery of the spine: advanced techniques and controversies. Philadelphia: Saunders/Elsevier; 2008.

50.

Zigler JE, Delamarter R, Murrey D, Spivak J, Janssen M. ProDisc-C and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion as surgical treatment for single-level cervical symptomatic degenerative disc disease: five-year results of a Food and Drug Administration study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013;38(3):203–9. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e318278eb38.CrossRef

51.

Colle KO, Butler JB, Reyes PM, Newcomb AG, Theodore N, Crawford NR. Biomechanical evaluation of a metal-on-metal cervical intervertebral disc prosthesis. Spine J. 2013;13(11):1640–9. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2013.06.026.CrossRefPubMed

52.

Rushton S, Marzluff J, McConnel J. SECURE-C cervical artificial disc. In: Yue J, editors. Motion preservation surgery of the spine: advanced techniques and controversies. Philadelphia: Saunders/Elsevier; 2008.

53.

Vaccaro A, Beutler W, Peppelman W, Marzluff JM, Highsmith J, Mugglin A, DeMuth G, Gudipally M, Baker KJ. Clinical outcomes with selectively constrained SECURE-C cervical disc arthroplasty: two-year results from a prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter investigational device exemption study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013;38(26):2227–39. doi:10.1097/BRS.0000000000000031.CrossRef

54.

Reyes-Sanchez A, Patwardhan A, Block J. The M6 artificial cervical disc. In: Yue J, editor. Motion preservation surgery of the spine: advanced techniques and controversies. Philadelphia: Saunders/Elsevier; 2008.

55.

Reyes-Sanchez A, Miramontes V, Olivarez LM, Aquirre AA, Quiroz AO, Zarate-Kalfopulos B. Initial clinical experience with a next-generation artificial disc for the treatment of symptomatic degenerative cervical radiculopathy. SAS J. 2010;4(1):9–15. doi:10.1016/j.esas.2010.01.002.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

56.

Hu Y, Lv G, Ren S, Johansen D. 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

57.

Benzel E, Lieberman I, Ross ER, Linovitz RJ, Kuras J, Zimmers K. Mechanical characterization of a viscoelastic disc for lumbar total disc replacement. J of Med Devices. 2011;5:1–7.CrossRef

58.

•• Rischke B, Ross R, Jollenbeck B, Zimmers K, Defibaugh N. Preclinical and clinical experience with a viscoelastic total disc replacement. SciVerse ScienceDirect Journal. 2011;5:97–107. This is a combined preclinical and clinical study assessing a novel viscoelastic disc arthroplasty with encouraging results.

59.

Rischke B, Zimmers K, Smith E. Viscoelastic disc arthroplasty provides superior back and leg pain relief in patients with lumbar disc degeneration compared to anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Int J Spine Surgery. 9(26):1–8.

Title: Cervical disc replacement surgery: indications, technique, and technical pearls
Authors: Dante Leven
Joshua Meaike
Kris Radcliff
Sheeraz Qureshi
Publication date: 01-06-2017
Publisher: Springer US
Published in: Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine / Issue 2/2017
Electronic ISSN: 1935-9748
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12178-017-9398-3

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Cervical disc replacement surgery: indications, technique, and technical pearls

Abstract

Purpose of review

Recent findings

Summary

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose of review

Recent findings

Summary

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 2/2017

Interspinous implants to treat spinal stenosis

The future of social media in orthopedic surgery

Lumbar disc replacement surgery—successes and obstacles to widespread adoption

Temporary stabilization of unstable spine fractures

Social media: physicians-to-physicians education and communication

Current concepts of shared decision making in orthopedic surgery