Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
European Spine Journal
Published in: European Spine Journal 9/2015

01-09-2015 | Review Article

Factors that may affect outcome in cervical artificial disc replacement: a systematic review

Authors: Jian Kang, Changgui Shi, Yifei Gu, Chengwei Yang, Rui Gao

Published in: European Spine Journal | Issue 9/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

To identify the factors that may affect outcome in C-ADR and provide the pooled results of postoperative success rate of implanted segment range of motion (ROM), incidence of heterotopic ossification (HO), incidence of radiographic adjacent segment degeneration (r-ASD)/adjacent segment disease (ASD), and surgery rate for ASD.

Methods

We systematically searched in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library and Web of knowledge from 2001 to May 2015. Two independent reviewers screened the primary records. Eleven questions regarding the effect of patient selection issues and radiographic parameters issues on outcome were posed previously. Studies addressing the framed questions were included for analysis.

Results

Twenty-two studies were included for the final analysis. Results showed that number of surgical level (single versus double-level) had no effect on primary clinical outcome and radiographic outcome, surgical level had no effect on clinical and radiographic outcome, and smoking habits had negative effect on clinical outcome. No evidence for the effect of patient’s age and pathology category (radiculopathy or myelopathy) on outcome was found. The overall success rate of ROM was 79.4 %. ROM of the implanted segment and cervical sagittal alignment had no effects on clinical outcome. The pooled incidences of grade 1–4 HO and grade 3–4 HO were 27.7 and 7.8 %, respectively. The pooled incidence of r-ASD and surgery rate for ASD were 42.4 and 3.8 %, respectively.

Conclusions

The available evidence showed that most of the pre-selected factors had no effect on outcome after C-ADR, and the ROM success rate, incidence of HO and r-ASD/ASD, and surgery rate for ASD are acceptable. There is a lack of evidence from RCTs for some factors.
Literature
1.
Acosta FL Jr, Ames CP (2005) Cervical disc arthroplasty: general introduction. Neurosurg Clin N Am 16:603–607CrossRefPubMed
2.
Jawahar A, Cavanaugh DA, Kerr EJ 3rd, Birdsong EM, Nunley PD (2010) Total disc arthroplasty does not affect the incidence of adjacent segment degeneration in cervical spine: results of 93 patients in three prospective randomized clinical trials. Spine J 10:1043–1048CrossRefPubMed
3.
Zindrick MR, Tzermiadianos MN, Voronov LI, Lorenz M, Hadjipavlou A (2008) An evidence-based medicine approach in determining factors that may affect outcome in lumbar total disc replacement. Spine 33:1262–1269CrossRefPubMed
4.
Liao Z, Gao R, Xu C, Li ZS (2010) Indications and detection, completion, and retention rates of small-bowel capsule endoscopy: a systematic review. Gastrointest Endosc 71:280–286CrossRefPubMed
5.
Skeppholm M, Lindgren L, Henriques T, Vavruch L, Löfgren H, Olerud C (2015) The Discover artificial disc replacement versus fusion in cervical radiculopathy-a randomized controlled outcome trial with 2-year follow-up. Spine J [Epub ahead of print]
6.
Bae HW, Kim KD, Nunley PD, et al (2015) Comparison of clinical outcomes of one and two-level total disc replacement: 4-year results from a prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter ide clinical trial. Spine [Epub ahead of print]
7.
Park JJ, Quirno M, Cunningham MR, Schwarzkopf R et al (2010) Analysis of segmental cervical spine vertebral motion after prodisc-C cervical disc replacement. Spine 35:E285–E289CrossRefPubMed
8.
Sasso RC, Metcalf NH, Hipp JA, Wharton ND, Anderson PA (2011) Sagittal alignment after Bryan cervical arthroplasty. Spine 36:991–996CrossRefPubMed
9.
Murrey D, Janssen M, Delamarter R et al (2009) 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 9:275–286CrossRefPubMed
10.
Coric D, Nunley PD, Guyer RD et al (2011) Prospective, randomized, multicenter study of cervical arthroplasty: 269 patients from the Kineflex|C artificial disc investigational device exemption study with a minimum 2-year follow-up: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 15:348–358CrossRefPubMed
11.
Burkus JK, Traynelis VC, Haid RW Jr (2014) Mummaneni PV (2014) 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 21:516–528CrossRefPubMed
12.
Hisey MS, Bae HW, Davis RJ et al (2015) Prospective, randomized comparison of cervical total disk replacement versus anterior cervical fusion: results at 48 months follow-up. J Spinal Disord Tech 28:E237–E243CrossRefPubMed
13.
Sasso RC, Best NM, Metcalf NH, Anderson PA (2008) Motion analysis of bryan cervical disc arthroplasty versus anterior discectomy and fusion: results from a prospective, randomized, multicenter, clinical trial. J Spinal Disord Tech 21:393–399CrossRefPubMed
14.
Xu JX, Zhang YZ, Shen Y, Ding WY (2009) Effect of modified techniques in Bryan cervical disc arthroplasty. Spine 34:1012–1017CrossRefPubMed
15.
Hisey MS, Davis RJ, Hoffman GA et al (2014) Sagittal alignment of one-level tdr and acdf patients: an analysis of patient outcomes from a randomized, prospective, clinical trial. Spine J 14:S124–S125CrossRef
16.
McAfee PC, Cunningham BW, Devine J, Williams E, Yu-Yahiro J (2003) Classification of heterotopic ossification (HO) in artificial disk replacement. J Spinal Disord Tech 16:384–389CrossRefPubMed
17.
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 37:433–438CrossRefPubMed
18.
Phillips FM, Lee JY, Geisler FH et al (2013) A prospective, randomized, controlled clinical investigation comparing PCM cervical disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. 2-year results from the US FDA IDE clinical trial. Spine 38:E907–E918CrossRefPubMed
19.
Zhang HX, Shao YD, Chen Y et al (2014) A prospective, randomised, controlled multicentre study comparing cervical disc replacement with anterior cervical decompression and fusion. Int Orthop 38:2533–2541CrossRefPubMed
20.
21.
Walraevens J, Liu B, Meersschaert J et al (2009) Qualitative and quantitative assessment of degeneration of cervical intervertebral discs and facet joints. Eur Spine J 18:358–369PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
22.
Spivak JM, Delamarter RB, Murrey DB, Zigler JE, Janssen ME, Goldstein JA (2012) Adjacent level radiographic degenerative changes following single-level artificial disc replacement or ACDF at five- to seven- year follow-up. Spine J 12:S62CrossRef
23.
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 81:519–528PubMed
24.
Nunley PD, Jawahar A, Cavanaugh DA, Gordon CR, Kerr EJ 3rd, Utter PA (2013) Symptomatic adjacent segment disease after cervical total disc replacement: re-examining the clinical and radiological evidence with established criteria. Spine J 13:5–12CrossRefPubMed
25.
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(18):1684–1692CrossRefPubMed
26.
Upadhyaya CD, Wu JC, Trost G et al (2012) Analysis of the three United States Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption cervical arthroplasty trials. J Neurosurg Spine 16(3):216–228CrossRefPubMed
27.
Delamarter RB, Zigler J (2013) Five-year reoperation rates, cervical total disc replacement versus fusion, results of a prospective randomized clinical trial. Spine 38(9):711–717CrossRefPubMed
28.
Coric D, Kim PK, Clemente JD, Boltes MO, Nussbaum M, James S (2013) 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 18:36–42CrossRefPubMed
29.
Blumenthal SL, Ohnmeiss DD, Guyer RD, Zigler JE (2013) Reoperations in cervical total disc replacement compared with anterior cervical fusion: results compiled from multiple prospective food and drug administration investigational device exemption trials conducted at a single site. Spine 38:1177–1182CrossRefPubMed
30.
Myer J, Beutler W, McConnell JR, Lindley JG (2014) The incidence of symptomatic adjacent segment disease requiring treatment: cervical arthroplasty versus ACDF. Spine J 14:S160
31.
Cepoiu-Martin M, Faris P, Lorenzetti D, Prefontaine E, Noseworthy T, Sutherland L (2011) Artificial cervical disc arthroplasty: a systematic review. Spine 36:E1623–E1633CrossRefPubMed
32.
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 21:674–680PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
33.
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 95:555–561PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
34.
Zhou HH, Qu Y, Dong RP, Kang MY, Zhao JW (2015) Does heterotopic ossification affect the outcomes of cervical total disc replacement? A meta-analysis. Spine 40:E332–E340CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Factors that may affect outcome in cervical artificial disc replacement: a systematic review
Authors
Jian Kang
Changgui Shi
Yifei Gu
Chengwei Yang
Rui Gao
Publication date
01-09-2015
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Spine Journal / Issue 9/2015
Print ISSN: 0940-6719
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0932
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-4096-6

Other articles of this Issue 9/2015

European Spine Journal 9/2015 Go to the issue

Announcements

Announcements for issue 9, 2015

Original Article

Intervertebral disc degenerative changes after intradiscal injection of TNF-α in a porcine model

Original Article

Evaluation of impingement behaviour in lumbar spinal disc arthroplasty

Original Article

Gait abnormality due to spinal instability after lumbar facetectomy in the rat

Review Article

Limitations of current in vitro test protocols for investigation of instrumented adjacent segment biomechanics: critical analysis of the literature

Original Article

Genetic susceptibility of lumbar degenerative disc disease in young Indian adults