Top

Published in:

01-04-2018 | Review

Does design matter? Cervical disc replacements under review

Authors: Michael D. Staudt, Kaushik Das, Neil Duggal

Published in: Neurosurgical Review | Issue 2/2018

Abstract

The present article reviews the design rationale of currently available cervical disc replacements. Recent prospective randomized control trials comparing cervical disc replacement and anterior fusion have demonstrated safety as well as equal or superior clinical results. Increasingly, more devices are becoming available on the market. Understanding design rationale will provide context for the surgeon to optimize decision making for the most appropriate prosthesis. Cervical arthroplasty is a technique that is undergoing rapid design refinement and development. Further improvements in device design will enable patient-specific device selection. Understanding the design rationale and complication profile of each device will improve clinical and radiographic outcomes.

Agrillo U, Faccioli F, Fachinetti P, Gambardella G, Guizzardi G, Profeta G (1999) Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of the degenerative diseases of cervical spine. J Neurosurg Sci 43:11–14PubMed

Alvin MD, Abbott EE, Lubelski D, Kuhns B, Nowacki AS, Steinmetz MP, Benzel EC, Mroz TE (2014) Cervical arthroplasty: a critical review of the literature. Spine J 14:2231–2245. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2014.03.047 CrossRefPubMed

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. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e31817329a1 CrossRefPubMed

Coric D, Nunley PD, Guyer RD, Musante D, Carmody CN, Gordon CR, Lauryssen C, Ohnmeiss DD, Boltes MO (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 15:348–358. doi:10.3171/2011.5.SPINE10769 CrossRefPubMed

Datta JC, Janssen ME, Beckham R, Ponce C (2007) Sagittal split fractures in multilevel cervical arthroplasty using a keeled prosthesis. J Spinal Disord Tech 20:89–92. doi:10.1097/01.bsd.0000211258.90378.10 CrossRefPubMed

Davis RJ, Kim KD, Hisey MS, Hoffman GA, Bae HW, Gaede SE, Rashbaum RF, Nunley PD, Peterson DL, Stokes JK (2013) 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 19:532–545. doi:10.3171/2013.6.SPINE12527 CrossRefPubMed

Du J, Li M, Liu H, Meng H, He Q, Luo Z (2011) Early follow-up outcomes after treatment of degenerative disc disease with the discover cervical disc prosthesis. Spine J 11:281–289. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2011.01.037 CrossRefPubMed

Duggal N, Rabin D, Chamberlain RH, Baek S, Crawford NR (2007) Traumatic loading of the Bryan cervical disc prosthesis: an in vitro study. Neurosurgery 60:388–392. doi:10.1227/01.NEU.0000255374.34475.D0, discussion 392-383PubMed

Gornet MF, Burkus JK, Shaffrey ME, Argires PJ, Nian H, Harrell FE Jr (2015) Cervical disc arthroplasty with PRESTIGE LP disc versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a prospective, multicenter investigational device exemption study. J Neurosurg Spine 31:1–16. doi:10.3171/2015.1.SPINE14589

10.

Head WC, Bauk DJ, Emerson RH, Jr. (1995) Titanium as the material of choice for cementless femoral components in total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 311:85–90

11.

Heller JG, Sasso RC, Papadopoulos SM, Anderson PA, Fessler RG, Hacker RJ, Coric D, Cauthen JC, Riew DK (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. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e31818ee263 CrossRefPubMed

12.

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 81:519–528CrossRefPubMed

13.

Hisey MS, Bae HW, Davis R, Gaede S, Hoffman G, Kim K, Nunley PD, Peterson D, Rashbaum R, Stokes J (2014) Multi-center, prospective, randomized, controlled investigational device exemption clinical trial comparing Mobi-C Cervical Artificial Disc to anterior discectomy and fusion in the treatment of symptomatic degenerative disc disease in the cervical spine. Int J Spine Surg 8. doi:10.14444/1007

14.

Hou Y, Liu Y, Yuan W, Wang X, Chen H, Yang L, Zhang Y (2014) Cervical kinematics and radiological changes after Discover artificial disc replacement versus fusion. Spine J 14:867–877. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2013.07.432 CrossRefPubMed

15.

Kepler CK, Brodt ED, Dettori JR, Albert TJ (2012) Cervical artificial disc replacement versus fusion in the cervical spine: a systematic review comparing multilevel versus single-level surgery. Evid-Based Spine-Care J 3:19–30. doi:10.1055/s-0031-1298605 PubMedPubMedCentral

16.

Kim SW, Shin JH, Arbatin JJ, Park MS, Chung YK, McAfee PC (2008) Effects of a cervical disc prosthesis on maintaining sagittal alignment of the functional spinal unit and overall sagittal balance of the cervical spine. Eur Spine J 17:20–29. doi:10.1007/s00586-007-0459-y CrossRefPubMed

17.

Kurtz SM, Gawel HA, Patel JD (2011) History and systematic review of wear and osteolysis outcomes for first-generation highly crosslinked polyethylene. Clin Orthop Relat Res 469:2262–2277. doi:10.1007/s11999-011-1872-4 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

18.

Lauryssen C, Coric D, Dimmig T, Musante D, Ohnmeiss DD, Stubbs HA (2012) Cervical total disc replacement using a novel compressible prosthesis: results from a prospective Food and Drug Administration-regulated feasibility study with 24-month follow-up. Int J Spine Surg 6:71–77. doi:10.1016/j.ijsp.2012.02.001 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

19.

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:E6. doi:10.3171/2010.3.FOCUS1058 CrossRefPubMed

20.

Li GL, Hu JZ, Lu HB, Qu J, Guo LY, Zai FL (2015) Anterior cervical discectomy with arthroplasty versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for cervical spondylosis. J Clin Neurosci 22:460–467. doi:10.1016/j.jocn.2014.09.010 CrossRefPubMed

21.

Matz PG, Pritchard PR, Hadley MN (2007) Anterior cervical approach for the treatment of cervical myelopathy. Neurosurgery 60:S64–70. doi:10.1227/01.NEU.0000215399.67006.05 CrossRefPubMed

22.

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. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e31823da169 CrossRefPubMed

23.

Mehren C, Suchomel P, Grochulla F, Barsa P, Sourkova P, Hradil J, Korge A, Mayer HM (2006) Heterotopic ossification in total cervical artificial disc replacement. Spine 31:2802–2806. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000245852.70594.d5 CrossRefPubMed

24.

Mummaneni PV, Burkus JK, Haid RW, Traynelis VC, Zdeblick TA (2007) Clinical and radiographic analysis of cervical disc arthroplasty compared with allograft fusion: a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Neurosurg Spine 6:198–209. doi:10.3171/spi.2007.6.3.198 CrossRefPubMed

25.

Mummaneni PV, Robinson JC, Haid RW Jr (2007) Cervical arthroplasty with the PRESTIGE LP cervical disc. Neurosurgery 60:310–314. doi:10.1227/01.NEU.0000255376.42099.13, discussion 314-315CrossRefPubMed

26.

Murrey D, Janssen M, Delamarter R, Goldstein J, Zigler J, Tay B, Darden B (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 9:275–286. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2008.05.006 CrossRefPubMed

27.

Pham MH, Mehta VA, Tuchman A, Hsieh PC (2015) Material science in cervical total disc replacement. BioMed Res Int 2015:719123. doi:10.1155/2015/719123 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

28.

Phillips FM, Garfin SR (2005) Cervical disc replacement. Spine 30:S27–33CrossRefPubMed

29.

Phillips FM, Lee JY, Geisler FH, Cappuccino A, Chaput CD, DeVine JG, Reah C, Gilder KM, Howell KM, McAfee PC (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:E907–918. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e318296232f CrossRefPubMed

30.

Pickett GE, Mitsis DK, Sekhon LH, Sears WR, Duggal N (2004) Effects of a cervical disc prosthesis on segmental and cervical spine alignment. Neurosurg Focus 17:E5CrossRefPubMed

31.

Pickett GE, Rouleau JP, Duggal N (2005) Kinematic analysis of the cervical spine following implantation of an artificial cervical disc. Spine 30:1949–1954CrossRefPubMed

32.

Pickett GE, Sekhon LH, Sears WR, Duggal N (2006) Complications with cervical arthroplasty. J Neurosurg Spine 4:98–105. doi:10.3171/spi.2006.4.2.98 CrossRefPubMed

33.

Rabin D, Bertagnoli R, Wharton N, Pickett GE, Duggal N (2009) Sagittal balance influences range of motion: an in vivo study with the ProDisc-C. Spine J 9:128–133. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2008.01.009 CrossRefPubMed

34.

Ren C, Song Y, Xue Y, Yang X (2014) 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 23:1115–1123. doi:10.1007/s00586-014-3220-3 CrossRefPubMed

35.

Rozankovic M, Marasanov SM, Vukic M (2014) Cervical disc replacement with discover versus fusion in a single level cervical disc disease: a prospective single center randomized trial with a minimum two-year follow-up. J Spinal Disord Tech. doi:10.1097/BSD.0000000000000170

36.

Sears WR, Duggal N, Sekhon LH, Williamson OD (2007) Segmental malalignment with the Bryan cervical disc prosthesis—contributing factors. J Spinal Disord Tech 20:111–117. doi:10.1097/01.bsd.0000211264.20873.78 CrossRefPubMed

37.

Sears WR, McCombe PF, Sasso RC (2006) Kinematics of cervical and lumbar total disc replacement. Semin Spine Surg 18:117–129CrossRef

38.

Sears WR, Sekhon LH, Duggal N, Williamson OD (2007) Segmental malalignment with the Bryan Cervical Disc prosthesis—does it occur? J Spinal Disord Tech 20:1–6. doi:10.1097/01.bsd.0000211262.13250.f8 CrossRefPubMed

39.

Sekhon LH, Duggal N, Lynch JJ, Haid RW, Heller JG, Riew KD, Seex K, Anderson PA (2007) Magnetic resonance imaging clarity of the Bryan, Prodisc-C, Prestige LP, and PCM cervical arthroplasty devices. Spine 32:673–680. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000257547.17822.14 CrossRefPubMed

40.

Sekhon LH, Sears W, Duggal N (2005) Cervical arthroplasty after previous surgery: results of treating 24 discs in 15 patients. J Neurosurg Spine 3:335–341. doi:10.3171/spi.2005.3.5.0335 CrossRefPubMed

41.

Thomas S, Willems K, Van den Daelen L, Linden P, Ciocci MC, Bocher P (2013) The M6-C Cervical Disc Prosthesis: first clinical experience in 33 patients. J Spinal Disord Tech. doi:10.1097/BSD.0000000000000025

42.

Vaccaro A, Beutler W, Peppelman W, Marzluff JM, Highsmith J, Mugglin A, DeMuth G, Gudipally M, Baker KJ (2013) Clinical outcomes with selectively constrained SECURE-C cervical disc arthroplasty: two-year results from a prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter investigational device exemption study. Spine 38:2227–2239. doi:10.1097/BRS.0000000000000031 CrossRefPubMed

43.

Veruva SY, Steinbeck MJ, Toth J, Alexander DD, Kurtz SM (2014) Which design and biomaterial factors affect clinical wear performance of total disc replacements? A systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res 472:3759–3769. doi:10.1007/s11999-014-3751-2 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

44.

Yi S, Shin HC, Kim KN, Park HK, Jang IT, Yoon DH (2007) Modified techniques to prevent sagittal imbalance after cervical arthroplasty. Spine 32:1986–1991. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e318133fb99 CrossRefPubMed

45.

Zechmeister I, Winkler R, Mad P (2011) Artificial total disc replacement versus fusion for the cervical spine: a systematic review. Eur Spine J 20:177–184. doi:10.1007/s00586-010-1583-7 CrossRefPubMed

Title: Does design matter? Cervical disc replacements under review
Authors: Michael D. Staudt
Kaushik Das
Neil Duggal
Publication date: 01-04-2018
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: Neurosurgical Review / Issue 2/2018
Print ISSN: 0344-5607
Electronic ISSN: 1437-2320
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10143-016-0765-0

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

Springer Medicine

Does design matter? Cervical disc replacements under review

Abstract

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 2/2018

Reliable diagnosis of IDH-mutant glioblastoma by 2-hydroxyglutarate detection: a study by 3-T magnetic resonance spectroscopy

A comparative study of intraoperative findings and postoperative outcomes between atypical and typical hemifacial spasms

Ruptured dissecting aneurysms of the A1 segment of the anterior cerebral artery: three case reports and a review of the literature

Association between antithrombotic drug use before chronic subdural haematoma and outcome after drainage: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Thoracic corpectomy for neoplastic vertebral bodies using a navigated lateral extracavitary approach—a single-center consecutive case series: technique and analysis

A meta-analysis of the effect of different neuroprotective drugs in management of patients with traumatic brain injury