Neurospine

THE KOREAN SPINAL NEUROSURGERY SOCIETY (대한척추신경외과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The Option of Motion Preservation in Cervical Spondylosis: Cervical Disc Arthroplasty Update

  • Chang, Chih-Chang (Department of Neurosurgery, Neurological Institute, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei) ;
  • Huang, Wen-Cheng (Department of Neurosurgery, Neurological Institute, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei) ;
  • Wu, Jau-Ching (Department of Neurosurgery, Neurological Institute, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei) ;
  • Mummaneni, Praveen V. (Department of Neurosurgery, University of California)
  • Received : 2018.05.09
  • Accepted : 2018.08.28
  • Published : 2018.12.31
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA), or total disc replacement, has emerged as an option in the past two decades for the management of 1- and 2-level cervical disc herniation and spondylosis causing radiculopathy, myelopathy, or both. Multiple prospective randomized controlled trials have demonstrated CDA to be as safe and effective as anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, which has been the standard of care for decades. Moreover, CDA successfully preserved segmental mobility in the majority of surgical levels for 5-10 years. Although CDA has been suggested to have long-term efficacy for the reduction of adjacent segment disease in some studies, more data are needed on this topic. Surgery for CDA is more demanding for decompression, because indirect decompression by placement of a tall bone graft is not possible in CDA. The artificial discs should be properly sized, centered, and installed to allow movement of the vertebrae, and are commonly 6 mm high or less in most patients. The key to successful CDA surgery includes strict patient selection, generous decompression of the neural elements, accurate sizing of the device, and appropriately centered implant placement.

Keywords

References

  1. Wu JC, Hsieh PC, Mummaneni PV, et al. Spinal motion preservation surgery. Biomed Res Int 2015;2015:372502.
  2. Wu JC, Liu L, Wen-Cheng H, et al. The incidence of adjacent segment disease requiring surgery after anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion: estimation using an 11-year comprehensive nationwide database in Taiwan. Neurosurgery 2012;70:594-601. https://doi.org/10.1227/NEU.0b013e318232d4f2
  3. Wu JC, Huang WC, Tu TH, et al. Differences between softdisc herniation and spondylosis in cervical arthroplasty: CT-documented heterotopic ossification with minimum 2 years of follow-up. J Neurosurg Spine 2012;16:163-71. https://doi.org/10.3171/2011.10.SPINE11497
  4. Mummaneni PV, Amin BY, Wu JC, et al. Cervical artificial disc replacement versus fusion in the cervical spine: a systematic review comparing long-term follow-up results from two FDA trials. Evid Based Spine Care J 2012;3(S1):59-66. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0031-1298610
  5. Gornet MF, Burkus JK, Shaffrey ME, et al. Cervical disc arthroplasty with PRESTIGE LP disc versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a prospective, multicenter investigational device exemption study. J Neurosurg Spine 2015;23:558-73. https://doi.org/10.3171/2015.1.SPINE14589
  6. Gornet MF, Lanman TH, Burkus JK, et al. Cervical disc arthroplasty with the Prestige LP disc versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, at 2 levels: results of a prospective, multicenter randomized controlled clinical trial at 24 months. J Neurosurg Spine 2017;26:653-67. https://doi.org/10.3171/2016.10.SPINE16264
  7. Heller JG, Sasso RC, Papadopoulos SM, et al. Comparison of BRYAN cervical disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical decompression and fusion: clinical and radiographic results of a randomized, controlled, clinical trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2009;34:101-7. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31818ee263
  8. Lanman TH, Burkus JK, Dryer RG, et al. Long-term clinical and radiographic outcomes of the Prestige LP artificial cervical disc replacement at 2 levels: results from a prospective randomized controlled clinical trial. J Neurosurg Spine 2017;27:7-19. https://doi.org/10.3171/2016.11.SPINE16746
  9. Mummaneni PV, Burkus JK, Haid RW, et al. Clinical and radiographic analysis of cervical disc arthroplasty compared with allograft fusion: a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Neurosurg Spine 2007;6:198-209. https://doi.org/10.3171/spi.2007.6.3.198
  10. Murrey D, Janssen M, Delamarter R, et al. 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;9:275-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2008.05.006
  11. 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;25:213-24. https://doi.org/10.3171/2015.12.SPINE15824
  12. Upadhyaya CD, Wu JC, Trost G, et al. Analysis of the three United States Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption cervical arthroplasty trials. J Neurosurg Spine 2012;16:216-28. https://doi.org/10.3171/2011.6.SPINE10623
  13. Burkus JK, Traynelis VC, Haid RW Jr, et al. 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 2014;21:516-28. https://doi.org/10.3171/2014.6.SPINE13996
  14. Davis RJ, Kim KD, Hisey MS, et al. 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 2013;19:532-45. https://doi.org/10.3171/2013.6.SPINE12527
  15. Burkus JK, Haid RW, Traynelis VC, et al. 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 2010;13:308-18. https://doi.org/10.3171/2010.3.SPINE09513
  16. Quan GM, Vital JM, Hansen S, et al. Eight-year clinical and radiological follow-up of the Bryan cervical disc arthroplasty. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2011;36:639-46. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181dc9b51
  17. Coric D, Kim PK, Clemente JD, et al. 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 2013;18:36-42. https://doi.org/10.3171/2012.9.SPINE12555
  18. Hilibrand AS, Carlson GD, Palumbo MA, et al. Radiculopathy and myelopathy at segments adjacent to the site of a previous anterior cervical arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1999;81:519-28. https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-199904000-00009
  19. Ahn HS, DiAngelo DJ. A biomechanical study of artificial cervical discs using computer simulation. Spine 2008;33:883-92. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31816b1f5c
  20. Lou J, Li Y, Wang B, et al. In vitro biomechanical comparison after fixed- and mobile-core artificial cervical disc replacement versus fusion. Medicine (Baltimore) 2017;96:e8291. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000008291
  21. Chang PY, Chang HK, Wu JC, et al. Is cervical disc arthroplasty good for congenital cervical stenosis? J Neurosurg Spine 2017;26:577-85. https://doi.org/10.3171/2016.10.SPINE16317
  22. Chang HK, Huang WC, Wu JC, et al. Should cervical disc arthroplasty be done on patients with increased intramedullary signal intensity on magnetic resonance imaging? World Neurosurg 2016;89:489-96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2016.02.029
  23. Chang HC, Tu TH, Chang HK, et al. Hybrid corpectomy and disc arthroplasty for cervical spondylotic myelopathy caused by ossification of posterior longitudinal ligament and disc herniation. World Neurosurg 2016;95:22-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2016.07.065
  24. Chang HK, Chang CC, Tu TH, et al. Can segmental mobility be increased by cervical arthroplasty? Neurosurg Focus 2017;42:E3.
  25. Chang PY, Chang HK, Wu JC, et al. Differences between C3-4 and other subaxial levels of cervical disc arthroplasty: more heterotopic ossification at the 5-year follow-up. J Neurosurg Spine 2016;24:752-9. https://doi.org/10.3171/2015.10.SPINE141217
  26. Tu TH, Chang CC, Wu JC, et al. Resection of uncovertebral joints and posterior longitudinal ligament for cervical disc arthroplasty. Neurosurg Focus 2017;42(VideoSuppl1):V2.
  27. Wu JC, Huang WC, Tsai HW, et al. Differences between 1-and 2-level cervical arthroplasty: more heterotopic ossification in 2-level disc replacement: Clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 2012;16:594-600. https://doi.org/10.3171/2012.2.SPINE111066
  28. Wu JC, Huang WC, Tsai TY, et al. Multilevel arthroplasty for cervical spondylosis: more heterotopic ossification at 3 years of follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2012;37:E1251-9. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e318265a126
  29. Tu TH, Wu JC, Huang WC, et al. The effects of carpentry on heterotopic ossification and mobility in cervical arthroplasty: determination by computed tomography with a minimum 2-year follow-up: Clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 2012;16:601-9. https://doi.org/10.3171/2012.3.SPINE11436
  30. Chang HK, Huang WC, Wu JC, et al. Cervical arthroplasty for traumatic disc herniation: an age- and sex-matched comparison with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2015;16:228. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-015-0692-1
  31. Chang PY, Chang HK, Wu JC. Cervical disc arthroplasty: nonconstrained versus semiconstrained. J Neurosurg Spine 2015;23:394-5. https://doi.org/10.3171/2015.1.SPINE141313
  32. Tu TH, Wu JC, Huang WC, et al. Postoperative nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs and the prevention of heterotopic ossification after cervical arthroplasty: analysis using CT and a minimum 2-year follow-up. J Neurosurg Spine 2015;22:447-53. https://doi.org/10.3171/2014.10.SPINE14333
  33. Tu TH, Wu JC, Huang WC, et al. Heterotopic ossification after cervical total disc replacement: determination by CT and effects on clinical outcomes. J Neurosurg Spine 2011;14:457-65. https://doi.org/10.3171/2010.11.SPINE10444
  34. Fay LY, Huang WC, Wu JC, et al. Arthroplasty for cervical spondylotic myelopathy: similar results to patients with only radiculopathy at 3 years' follow-up. J Neurosurg Spine 2014;21:400-10. https://doi.org/10.3171/2014.3.SPINE13387
  35. Tu TH, Wu JC, Cheng H, et al. Hybrid cervical disc arthroplasty. Neurosurg Focus 2017;42(VideoSuppl1):V5. https://doi.org/10.3171/2017.1.FocusVid.16390
  36. Sasso WR, Smucker JD, Sasso MP, et al. Long-term clinical outcomes of cervical disc arthroplasty: a prospective, randomized, controlled trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2017;42:209-16. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000001746
  37. Coric D, Guyer RD, Nunley PD, et al. Prospective, randomized multicenter study of cervical arthroplasty versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: 5-year results with a metal-on-metal artificial disc. J Neurosurg Spine 2018;28:252-61. https://doi.org/10.3171/2017.5.SPINE16824
  38. Loumeau TP, Darden BV, Kesman TJ, et al. 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 2016;25:2263-70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4431-6
  39. Fay LY, Huang WC, Tsai TY, et al. Differences between arthroplasty and anterior cervical fusion in two-level cervical degenerative disc disease. Eur Spine J 2014;23:627-34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-013-3123-8

Cited by

  1. Segmental Motion of the Cervical Spine After Total Disc Replacement Using ActivC Versus Discectomy and Fusion Using Stand-alone Cage vol.126, pp.None, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2019.02.233
  2. Anterior Cervical Disc Replacement : Current Status and Future Perspective in Japan vol.33, pp.2, 2018, https://doi.org/10.2531/spinalsurg.33.144
  3. Effect of Myelopathy on Early Clinical Improvement After Cervical Disc Replacement: A Study of a Local Patient Cohort and a Large National Cohort vol.16, pp.3, 2018, https://doi.org/10.14245/ns.1938220.110
  4. Preservation Versus Elimination of Segmental Motion in Anterior Cervical Spine Surgery vol.16, pp.3, 2018, https://doi.org/10.14245/ns.19edi.016
  5. Cervical disc arthroplasty for less-mobile discs vol.31, pp.3, 2019, https://doi.org/10.3171/2019.2.spine181472
  6. Cervical disc arthroplasty for less-mobile discs vol.31, pp.3, 2019, https://doi.org/10.3171/2019.2.spine181472
  7. Recent advances in the management of cervical spondylotic myelopathy: bibliometric analysis and surgical perspectives : JNSPG 75th Anniversary Invited Review Article vol.31, pp.3, 2018, https://doi.org/10.3171/2019.5.spine18769
  8. Letter to the Editor. Cervical spondylotic myelopathy vol.32, pp.4, 2018, https://doi.org/10.3171/2019.9.spine191104
  9. Letter to the Editor. Cervical spondylotic myelopathy vol.32, pp.4, 2018, https://doi.org/10.3171/2019.9.spine191104
  10. Letter to the Editor. Cervical spondylotic myelopathy vol.32, pp.4, 2018, https://doi.org/10.3171/2019.9.spine191104
  11. Letter to the Editor. Indolent clinical and radiological effects of cervical disc arthroplasty vol.32, pp.6, 2020, https://doi.org/10.3171/2019.11.spine191369
  12. Letter to the Editor. Indolent clinical and radiological effects of cervical disc arthroplasty vol.32, pp.6, 2020, https://doi.org/10.3171/2019.11.spine191369
  13. Comparison of cervical disc arthroplasty and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for the treatment of cervical disc degenerative diseases on the basis of more than 60 months of follow-up: a system vol.20, pp.1, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12883-020-01717-0
  14. Cervical disc arthroplasty: What we know in 2020 and a literature review vol.29, pp.1, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1177/23094990211006934