Top

European Spine Journal

Published in:

Open Access 01-10-2019 | Neck Pain | Original Article

Clinical and radiological evaluation of cervical disc arthroplasty with 5-year follow-up: a prospective study of 384 patients

Authors: T. Dufour, J. Beaurain, J. Huppert, P. Dam-Hieu, P. Bernard, J. P. Steib

Published in: European Spine Journal | Issue 10/2019

Abstract

Background

Cervical total disc replacement was developed to avoid known complications of cervical fusion. The purpose of this paper was to provide 5-year follow-up results of an ongoing prospective study after implantation of cervical disc prosthesis.

Methods

Three hundred and eighty-four patients were treated using Mobi-C cervical disc (Zimmer Biomet, Troyes, France) and included in a prospective multicentre study. Routine clinical and radiological examinations were reported preoperatively and postoperatively with up to 5-year follow-up. Complications and revision surgeries were also explored.

Results

Results at 5 years showed significant improvement in all clinical outcomes (NDI, VAS for arm and neck pain, SF-36 PCS and MCS). Motion at index level increased significantly from 6.0° preoperatively to 8.0°, and 72.1% of the implanted segments were still mobile (referring to threshold of ROM > 3°). Proximal and distal adjacent discs showed no significant change in average motion 5 years after surgery compared to baseline. Ossification resulting in complete fusion was observed in 16.4% of the implanted segments. Distal and proximal adjacent disc degeneration occurred in 42.2% and 39.1% of patients, respectively. Complications rate was 8.9%, and 1.5% of the patients had reoperation at the index level. Surgery rate of adjacent discs was 2.9%. An increased percentage of working patients and a decrease in medication consumption were observed. At 5 years, 93.3% patients were satisfied regarding the overall outcome.

Conclusions

In this study, favourable 5-year follow-up clinical and radiological outcomes were observed with a low rate of adjacent level surgery.

Graphic abstract

These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Available only for authorised users

Cloward RB (1958) The anterior approach for removal of ruptured cervical disks. J Neurosurg 15(6):602–617. https://doi.org/10.3171/jns.1958.15.6.0602 CrossRefPubMed

Smith GW, Robinson RA (1958) The treatment of certain cervical-spine disorders by anterior removal of the intervertebral disc and interbody fusion. J Bone Jt Surg Am 40 (3):607–624CrossRef

Xie L, Liu M, Ding F, Li P, Ma D (2016) Cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) in symptomatic cervical degenerative disc diseases (CDDDs): an updated meta-analysis of prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs). SpringerPlus 5(1):1188. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-2851-8 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Zigler JE, Delamarter R, Murrey D, Spivak J, Janssen M (2013) 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 38(3):203–209. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e318278eb38 CrossRefPubMed

Matsumoto M, Okada E, Ichihara D, Watanabe K, Chiba K, Toyama Y, Fujiwara H, Momoshima S, Nishiwaki Y, Iwanami A, Ikegami T, Takahata T, Hashimoto T (2010) Anterior cervical decompression and fusion accelerates adjacent segment degeneration: comparison with asymptomatic volunteers in a ten-year magnetic resonance imaging follow-up study. Spine 35(1):36–43. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181b8a80d CrossRefPubMed

Helgeson MD, Bevevino AJ, Hilibrand AS (2013) Update on the evidence for adjacent segment degeneration and disease. Spine J 13(3):342–351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2012.12.009 CrossRefPubMed

Murtagh R, Castellvi AE (2014) Motion preservation surgery in the spine. Neuroimaging Clin N Am 24(2):287–294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nic.2014.01.008 CrossRefPubMed

Le H, Thongtrangan I, Kim DH (2004) Historical review of cervical arthroplasty. Neurosurg Focus 17(3):E1. https://doi.org/10.3171/foc.2004.17.3.1 CrossRefPubMed

Bono CM, Garfin SR (2004) History and evolution of disc replacement. Spine J 4(6 Suppl):145S–150S. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2004.07.005 CrossRefPubMed

10.

Turel MK, Kerolus MG, Adogwa O, Traynelis VC (2017) Cervical arthroplasty: what does the labeling say? Neurosurg Focus 42(2):E2. https://doi.org/10.3171/2016.11.FOCUS16414 CrossRefPubMed

11.

Xu B, Ma JX, Tian JH, Ge L, Ma XL (2017) Indirect meta-analysis comparing clinical outcomes of total cervical disc replacements with fusions for cervical degenerative disc disease. Sci Rep 7(1):1740. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-01865-3 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

Gao F, Mao T, Sun W, Guo W, Wang Y, Li Z, Abhinav P (2015) An updated meta-analysis comparing artificial cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for the treatment of cervical degenerative disc disease (CDDD). Spine 40(23):1816–1823. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000001138 CrossRefPubMed

13.

Hu Y, Lv G, Ren S, Johansen D (2016) 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 11(2):e0149312. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0149312 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

14.

Beaurain J, Bernard P, Dufour T, Fuentes JM, Hovorka I, Huppert J, Steib JP, Vital JM, Aubourg L, Vila T (2009) Intermediate clinical and radiological results of cervical TDR (Mobi-C) with up to 2 years of follow-up. Eur Spine J 18(6):841–850. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-009-1017-6 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

15.

Huppert J, Beaurain J, Steib JP, Bernard P, Dufour T, Hovorka I, Stecken J, Dam-Hieu P, Fuentes JM, Vital JM, Vila T, Aubourg L (2011) Comparison between single- and multi-level patients: clinical and radiological outcomes 2 years after cervical disc replacement. Eur Spine J 20(9):1417–1426. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-011-1722-9 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

16.

McAfee PC, Cunningham BW, Devine J, Williams E, Yu-Yahiro J (2003) Classification of heterotopic ossification (HO) in artificial disk replacement. J Spinal Disorders Tech 16(4):384–389CrossRef

17.

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(24):2802–2806. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000245852.70594.d5 CrossRefPubMed

18.

Kellgren JH, Lawrence JS (1957) Radiological assessment of osteo-arthrosis. Ann Rheum Dis 16(4):494–502CrossRef

19.

Symposium on Population Studies in Relation to Chronic Rheumatic Diseases R, Ball J, Jeffrey MR, Kellgren JH, Council for International Organizations of Medical S, University of Manchester. Department of R (1963) The epidemiology of chronic rheumatism; Volume 2: Atlas of standard radiographs of arthritis. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford

20.

Burkus JK, Haid RW, Traynelis VC, Mummaneni PV (2010) 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 13(3):308–318. https://doi.org/10.3171/2010.3.SPINE09513 CrossRefPubMed

21.

Dejaegher J, Walraevens J, van Loon J, Van Calenbergh F, Demaerel P, Goffin J (2017) 10-year follow-up after implantation of the Bryan Cervical Disc Prosthesis. Eur Spine J 26(4):1191–1198. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4897-2 CrossRefPubMed

22.

Hisey MS, Zigler JE, Jackson R, Nunley PD, Bae HW, Kim KD, Ohnmeiss DD (2016) 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 10:10. https://doi.org/10.14444/3010 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

23.

Loumeau TP, Darden BV, Kesman TJ, Odum SM, Van Doren BA, Laxer EB, Murrey DB (2016) A RCT comparing 7-year clinical outcomes of one level symptomatic cervical disc disease (SCDD) following ProDisc-C total disc arthroplasty (TDA) versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). Eur Spine J 25(7):2263–2270. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4431-6 CrossRefPubMed

24.

Mehren C, Heider F, Siepe CJ, Zillner B, Kothe R, Korge A, Mayer HM (2017) Clinical and radiological outcome at 10 years of follow-up after total cervical disc replacement. Eur Spine J https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-017-5204-6 CrossRefPubMed

25.

Phillips FM, Geisler FH, Gilder KM, Reah C, Howell KM, McAfee PC (2015) Long-term outcomes of the US FDA IDE prospective, randomized controlled clinical trial comparing PCM cervical disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Spine 40(10):674–683. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000000869 CrossRefPubMed

26.

Radcliff K, Coric D, Albert T (2016) 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 25(2):213–224. https://doi.org/10.3171/2015.12.SPINE15824 CrossRefPubMed

27.

Skeppholm M, Lindgren L, Henriques T, Vavruch L, Lofgren 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 15(6):1284–1294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2015.02.039 CrossRefPubMed

28.

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(26):2227–2239. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000000031 CrossRefPubMed

29.

Wigfield C, Gill S, Nelson R, Langdon I, Metcalf N, Robertson J (2002) Influence of an artificial cervical joint compared with fusion on adjacent-level motion in the treatment of degenerative cervical disc disease. J Neurosurg 96(1 Suppl):17–21PubMed

30.

Hilibrand AS, Robbins M (2004) Adjacent segment degeneration and adjacent segment disease: the consequences of spinal fusion? Spine J 4(6 Suppl):190S–194S. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2004.07.007 CrossRefPubMed

31.

Radcliff K, Davis RJ, Hisey MS, Nunley PD, Hoffman GA, Jackson RJ, Bae HW, Albert T, Coric D (2017) Long-term evaluation of cervical disc arthroplasty with the Mobi-C(c) cervical disc: a randomized, prospective, multicenter clinical trial with seven-year follow-up. Int J Spine Surg 11:31. https://doi.org/10.14444/4031 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

32.

Zou S, Gao J, Xu B, Lu X, Han Y, Meng H (2017) Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) versus cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) for two contiguous levels cervical disc degenerative disease: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Eur Spine J 26(4):985–997. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4655-5 CrossRefPubMed

33.

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(4):674–680. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-011-2094-x CrossRefPubMed

34.

Kong L, Ma Q, Meng F, Cao J, Yu K, Shen Y (2017) The prevalence of heterotopic ossification among patients after cervical artificial disc replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine 96(24):e7163. https://doi.org/10.1097/md.0000000000007163 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

35.

Utter PA, Kerr E, Cavanaugh D, Stone M, Nunley P (2015a) Endplate coverage correlates with heterotopic ossification in one-and two-level cervical TDR patients. J Neurosurg 123(2):A520. https://doi.org/10.3171/2015.8.JNS.AANS2015abstracts CrossRef

36.

Lee DH, Cho JH, Hwang CJ, Lee CS, Cho SK, Kim C, Ha JK (2018) What is the fate of pseudarthrosis detected 1 year after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion? Spine 43(1):E23–E28. https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0000000000002077 CrossRefPubMed

37.

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 Jt Surg Am 81(4):519–528CrossRef

38.

Xia XP, Chen HL, Cheng HB (2013) Prevalence of adjacent segment degeneration after spine surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Spine 38(7):597–608. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e318273a2ea CrossRefPubMed

39.

Kelly MP, Eliasberg CD, Riley MS, Ajiboye RM, SooHoo NF (2018) Reoperation and complications after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion and cervical disc arthroplasty: a study of 52,395 cases. Eur Spine J. 27(6):1432–1439. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-018-5570-8 (Epub 2018 Mar 31 PMID: 29605899)CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

40.

Dong L, Xu Z, Chen X, Wang D, Li D, Liu T, Hao D (2017) The change of adjacent segment after cervical disc arthroplasty compared with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Spine J 17(10):1549−1558. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2017.06.010 (Epub 2017 Jun 15. Review)CrossRefPubMed

41.

Chen C, Zhang X, Ma X (2017) Durability of cervical disc arthroplasties and its influence factors: a systematic review and a network meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore) 96(6):e5947. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000005947 (Review, PMID: 28178135)CrossRef

42.

Qureshi SA, McAnany S, Goz V, Koehler SM, Hecht AC (2013) Cost-effectiveness analysis: comparing single-level cervical disc replacement and single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 19(5):546–554. https://doi.org/10.3171/2013.8.spine12623 CrossRefPubMed

43.

Ament JD, Yang Z, Nunley P, Stone MB, Lee D, Kim KD (2016) Cost utility analysis of the cervical artificial disc vs fusion for the treatment of 2-level symptomatic degenerative disc disease: 5-year follow-up. Neurosurgery 79(1):135–145. https://doi.org/10.1227/neu.0000000000001208 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

44.

McAnany SJ, Overley S, Baird EO, Cho SK, Hecht AC, Zigler JE, Qureshi SA (2014) The 5-year cost-effectiveness of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion and cervical disc replacement: a Markov analysis. Spine 39(23):1924–1933. https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0000000000000562 CrossRefPubMed

45.

Jee YM, Bak JS, Weinlander E, Anderson PA (2016) Comparing nonrandomized observational studies with randomized controlled trials in cervical disc arthroplasty: a meta-analysis. Spine 41(5):419–428. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000001377 CrossRefPubMed

46.

Grob D, Porchet F, Kleinstuck FS, Lattig F, Jeszenszky D, Luca A, Mutter U, Mannion AF (2010) A comparison of outcomes of cervical disc arthroplasty and fusion in everyday clinical practice: surgical and methodological aspects. Eur Spine J 19(2):297–306. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-009-1194-3 CrossRefPubMed

Title: Clinical and radiological evaluation of cervical disc arthroplasty with 5-year follow-up: a prospective study of 384 patients
Authors: T. Dufour
J. Beaurain
J. Huppert
P. Dam-Hieu
P. Bernard
J. P. Steib
Publication date: 01-10-2019
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Keyword: Neck Pain
Published in: European Spine Journal / Issue 10/2019
Print ISSN: 0940-6719
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0932
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-019-06069-z

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Clinical and radiological evaluation of cervical disc arthroplasty with 5-year follow-up: a prospective study of 384 patients

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Graphic abstract

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Graphic abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 10/2019

Clival screw and plate fixation by the transoral approach for the craniovertebral junction: a CT-based feasibility study

Answer to the Letter to the Editor of P. Kent et al. concerning "Predicting a beneficial response to motor control training in patients with low back pain: a longitudinal cohort study" by Hides JA, et al. (Eur Spine J. 2019; https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-019-06045-7)

Symptomatic Tarlov cysts are often overlooked: ten reasons why—a narrative review

Comparison of cervical sagittal parameters among patients with neck pain and healthy controls: a comparative cross-sectional study

Letter to the Editor concerning "Predicting a beneficial response to motor control training in patients with low back pain: a longitudinal cohort study" by Hides JA, et al. (Eur Spine J. 2019; doi.org/10.1007/s00586-019-06045-7)

Heterotopic ossification is related to change in disc space angle after Prestige-LP cervical disc arthroplasty