Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Arthroplasty in the Cervical Spine

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Cervical Spine

Abstract

Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is currently considered the gold standard in treatment of degenerative disc disease in the cervical spine. Despite being a successful and widely used procedure some important drawbacks of this technique have become apparent over the years. Adjacent segment disease (ASDis) is defined as symptomatic degenerative changes at a level above or below a fused segment. Reported yearly incidence and cumulative prevalence of ASDis following an ACDF procedure is 2.9% and 25.6%, respectively, during the first 10-years after the operation. Cervical disc replacement (CDR) technology has been developed in order to overcome some of the limitations of ACDF surgery and mainly prevent the risk of ASDis following a fusion procedure. Since the first edition of this book, a few other CDR devices have been approved for marketing and several longer term follow-up studies have been published on the most widely used devices. Available long term clinical studies have shown that CDR offers similar, and in some cases, better results than the commonly accepted “gold standard” of fusion. Nevertheless, debate is still open as to whether the impact of CDR on reduction of adjacent segment surgery is significant in the long term. The aim of this chapter is to summarize available evidences on the use of CDR technology in degenerative diseases of the cervical spine.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bohlman HH, Emery SE, Goodfellow DB, Jones PK. Robinson anterior cervical discectomy and arthrodesis for cervical radiculopathy. Long-term follow-up of one hundred and twenty-two patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1993;75(9):1298–307. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8408151

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Cho SK, Riew KD. Adjacent segment disease following cervical spine surgery. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2013;21(1):3–11. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23281466

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Hilibrand AS, Carlson GD, Palumbo MA, Jones PK, Bohlman HH. Radiculopathy and myelopathy at segments adjacent to the site of a previous anterior cervical arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1999;81(4):519–28. Available from http://www.ejbjs.org/cgi/content/full/81/4/519

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Goffin J, Geusens E, Vantomme N, Quintens E, Waerzeggers Y, Depreitere B, et al. Long-term follow-up after interbody fusion of the cervical spine. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2004;17(2):79–85. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15260088

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Williams JL, Allen MB, Harkess JW. Late results of cervical discectomy and interbody fusion: some factors influencing the results. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1968;50(2):277–86. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/5642817

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Boden SD, McCowin PR, Davis DO, Dina TS, Mark AS, Wiesel S. Abnormal magnetic-resonance scans of the cervical spine in asymptomatic subjects. A prospective investigation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1990;72(8):1178–84. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2398088

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Henderson CM, Hennessy RG, Shuey HM, Shackelford EG. Posterior-lateral foraminotomy as an exclusive operative technique for cervical radiculopathy: a review of 846 consecutively operated cases. Neurosurgery. 1983;13(5):504–12. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6316196

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Nassr A, Lee JY, Bashir RS, Rihn JA, Eck JC, Kang JD, et al. Does incorrect level needle localization during anterior cervical discectomy and fusion lead to accelerated disc degeneration? Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009;34(2):189–92. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19139670

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Kim HJ, Kelly MP, Ely CG, Dettori JR, Riew KD. The risk of adjacent-level ossification development after surgery in the cervical spine: are there factors that affect the risk? A systematic review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012;37(22 Suppl):S65–74. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22872223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Park J-B, Cho Y-S, Riew KD. Development of adjacent-level ossification in patients with an anterior cervical plate. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87(3):558–63. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15741622

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hilibrand AS, Carlson GD, Palumbo MA, Jones PK, Bohlman HH. Radiculopathy and myelopathy at segments adjacent to the site of a previous anterior cervical arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1999;81(4):519–28. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10225797

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Dmitriev AE, Cunningham BW, Hu N, Sell G, Vigna F, McAfee PC. Adjacent level intradiscal pressure and segmental kinematics following a cervical total disc arthroplasty: an in vitro human cadaveric model. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005;30(10):1165–72. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15897831

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Yang X, Bartels RHMA, Donk R, Arts MP, Goedmakers CMW, Vleggeert-Lankamp CLA. The association of cervical sagittal alignment with adjacent segment degeneration. Eur Spine J. 2020;29(11):2655–64. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31606815

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Liang Y, Xu S, Yu G, Zhu Z, Liu H. Cervical spine alignment and clinical outcomes after multilevel anterior cervical decompression and fusion with or without plate: a minimal 5-year follow-up of a CONSORT-compliant article. Medicine (Baltimore). 2021;100(30):e26126. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34397682

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Teo SJ, Goh GS, Yeo W, Chen JL-T, Soh RCC. The relationship between cervical sagittal balance and adjacent segment disease after three-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Clin spine Surg. 2021; https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0000000000001135. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33560012

  16. Baaj AA, Uribe JS, Vale FL, Preul MC, Crawford NR. History of cervical disc arthroplasty. Neurosurg Focus. 2009;27(3):E10. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19722812

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Fernström U. Arthroplasty with intercorporal endoprothesis in herniated disc and in painful disc. Acta Chir Scand Suppl. 1966;357:154–9. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/5227072

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Cummins BH, Robertson JT, Gill SS. Surgical experience with an implanted artificial cervical joint. J Neurosurg. 1998;88(6):943–8. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9609285

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Ding D, Shaffrey ME. Cervical disk arthroplasty: patient selection. Clin Neurosurg. 2012;59:91–7. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22960519

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Tu T-H, Lee C-Y, Kuo C-H, Wu J-C, Chang H-K, Fay L-Y, et al. Cervical disc arthroplasty for less-mobile discs. J Neurosurg Spine. 2019;31(3):310–6. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31075765

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Duggal N, Pickett GE, Mitsis DK, Keller JL. Early clinical and biomechanical results following cervical arthroplasty. Neurosurg Focus. 2004;17(3):E9. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15636565

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Sekhon LHS. Cervical arthroplasty in the management of spondylotic myelopathy: 18-month results. Neurosurg Focus. 2004;17(3):E8. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15636564

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Fay L-Y, Huang W-C, Wu J-C, Chang H-K, Tsai T-Y, Ko C-C, et al. Arthroplasty for cervical spondylotic myelopathy: similar results to patients with only radiculopathy at 3 years’ follow-up. J Neurosurg Spine. 2014;21(3):400–10. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24926929

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Han X, He D, Zhang N, Song Q, Wang J, Tian W. Comparison of 10-year outcomes of bryan cervical disc arthroplasty for myelopathy and radiculopathy. Orthop Surg. 2019;11(6):1127–34. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31762194

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Guyer RD, Ohnmeiss DD, Blumenthal SL, Zigler JE. In which cases do surgeons specializing in total disc replacement perform fusion in patients with cervical spine symptoms? Eur Spine J. 2020;29(11):2665–9. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31897732

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Goffin J, Casey A, Kehr P, Liebig K, Lind B, Logroscino C, et al. Preliminary clinical experience with the Bryan Cervical Disc Prosthesis. Neurosurgery. 2002;51(3):840–5. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12188968

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Goffin J, Van Calenbergh F, van Loon J, Casey A, Kehr P, Liebig K, et al. Intermediate follow-up after treatment of degenerative disc disease with the Bryan Cervical Disc Prosthesis: single-level and bi-level. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003;28(24):2673–8. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14673368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Sasso RC, Smucker JD, Hacker RJ, Heller JG. Artificial disc versus fusion: a prospective, randomized study with 2-year follow-up on 99 patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007;32(26):2933–40. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18091483

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Sasso RC, Foulk DM, Hahn M. Prospective, randomized trial of metal-on-metal artificial lumbar disc replacement: initial results for treatment of discogenic pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008;33(2):123–31. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18197095

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Sasso RC, Anderson PA, Riew KD, Heller JG. 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. 2011;93(18):1684–92. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21938372

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Lavelle WF, Riew KD, Levi AD, Florman JE. Ten-year outcomes of cervical disc replacement with the BRYAN cervical disc: results from a prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2019;44(9):601–8. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30325888

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Genitiempo M, Perna A, Santagada DA, Meluzio MC, Proietti L, Bocchi MB, et al. Single-level Bryan cervical disc arthroplasty: evaluation of radiological and clinical outcomes after 18 years of follow-up. Eur Spine J. 2020;29(11):2823–30. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32529522

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Murrey D, Janssen M, Delamarter R, Goldstein J, Zigler J, Tay B, 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 cervi. Spine J. 2009;9(4):275–86. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18774751

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Bertagnoli R, Yue JJ, Pfeiffer F, Fenk-Mayer A, Lawrence JP, Kershaw T, et al. Early results after ProDisc-C cervical disc replacement. J Neurosurg Spine. 2005;2(4):403–10. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15871478

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Zhao Y, Zhou F, Sun Y, Pan S. Single-level cervical arthroplasty with ProDisc-C artificial disc: 10-year follow-up results in one centre. Eur Spine J. 2020;29(11):2670–4. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31489485

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Zigler JE, Guyer RD, Blumenthal SL, Ohnmeiss DD. Analysis of re-operations after cervical total disc replacement in a consecutive series of 535 patients receiving the ProDisc-C device. Eur Spine J. 2020;29(11):2683–7. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32277335

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Wigfield CC, Gill SS, Nelson RJ, Metcalf NH, Robertson JT. The new Frenchay artificial cervical joint: results from a two-year pilot study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2002;27(22):2446–52. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12435973

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Mummaneni PV, Burkus JK, Haid RW, Traynelis VC, Zdeblick TA. Clinical and radiographic analysis of cervical disc arthroplasty compared with allograft fusion: a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Neurosurg Spine. 2007;6(3):198–209. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17355018

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Gornet MF, Burkus JK, Shaffrey ME, Schranck FW, Copay AG. Cervical disc arthroplasty: 10-year outcomes of the Prestige LP cervical disc at a single level. J Neurosurg Spine. 2019;31(3):317–25. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31075769

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. McAfee PC, Reah C, Gilder K, Eisermann L, Cunningham B. 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 (Phila Pa 1976). 2012;37(11):943–52. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22037535

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Hui N, Phan K, Cheng HMK, Lin Y-H, Mobbs RJ. Complications of cervical total disc replacement and their associations with heterotopic ossification: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Spine J. 2020;29(11):2688–700. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32279116

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Fountas KN, Kapsalaki EZ, Nikolakakos LG, Smisson HF, Johnston KW, Grigorian AA, et al. Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion associated complications. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007;32(21):2310–7. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17906571

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Kelly MP, Eliasberg CD, Riley MS, Ajiboye RM, SooHoo NF. Reoperation and complications after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion and cervical disc arthroplasty: a study of 52,395 cases. Eur Spine J. 2018;27(6):1432–9. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29605899

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Datta JC, Janssen ME, Beckham R, Ponce C. Sagittal split fractures in multilevel cervical arthroplasty using a keeled prosthesis. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2007;20(1):89–92. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17285060

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Shim CS, Shin H-D, Lee S-H. Posterior avulsion fracture at adjacent vertebral body during cervical disc replacement with ProDisc-C: a case report. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2007;20(6):468–72. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17970189

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. McAfee PC, Cunningham BW, Devine J, Williams E, Yu-Yahiro J. Classification of heterotopic ossification (HO) in artificial disk replacement. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2003;16(4):384–9. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12902954

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Leung C, Casey AT, Goffin J, Kehr P, Liebig K, Lind B, et al. Clinical significance of heterotopic ossification in cervical disc replacement: a prospective multicenter clinical trial. Neurosurgery. 2005;57(4):759–63. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16239889

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Mehren C, Suchomel P, Grochulla F, Barsa P, Sourkova P, Hradil J, et al. Heterotopic ossification in total cervical artificial disc replacement. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006;31(24):2802–6. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17108833

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Hui N, Phan K, Kerferd J, Lee M, Mobbs RJ. Prevalence of and risk factors for heterotopic ossification after cervical total disc replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Glob Spine J. 2020;10(6):790–804. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32707022

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Heller JG, Sasso RC, Papadopoulos SM, Anderson PA, Fessler RG, Hacker RJ, 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(2):101–7. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19112337

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. 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. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22134486

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Tumialán LM, Gluf WM. Progressive vertebral body osteolysis after cervical disc arthroplasty. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011;36(14):E973–8. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21289567

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Heo DH, Lee DC, Oh JY, Park CK. Bone loss of vertebral bodies at the operative segment after cervical arthroplasty: a potential complication? Neurosurg Focus. 2017;42(2):E7. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28142258

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Kieser DC, Cawley DT, Fujishiro T, Mazas S, Boissière L, Obeid I, et al. Risk factors for anterior bone loss in cervical disc arthroplasty. J Neurosurg Spine. 2018;29(2):123–9. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29799314

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Kieser DC, Cawley DT, Fujishiro T, Tavolaro C, Mazas S, Boissiere L, et al. Anterior bone loss in cervical disc arthroplasty. Asian Spine J. 2019;13(1):13–21. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30326692

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Hacker FM, Babcock RM, Hacker RJ. Very late complications of cervical arthroplasty: results of 2 controlled randomized prospective studies from a single investigator site. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013;38(26):2223–6. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24335628

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Cavanaugh DA, Nunley PD, Kerr EJ, Werner DJ, Jawahar A. Delayed hyper-reactivity to metal ions after cervical disc arthroplasty: a case report and literature review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009;34(7):E262–5. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19333091

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Guyer RD, Shellock J, MacLennan B, Hanscom D, Knight RQ, McCombe P, et al. Early failure of metal-on-metal artificial disc prostheses associated with lymphocytic reaction: diagnosis and treatment experience in four cases. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011;36(7):E492–7. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21252827

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Lebl DR, Cammisa FP, Girardi FP, Wright T, Abjornson C. In vivo functional performance of failed Prodisc-L devices: retrieval analysis of lumbar total disc replacements. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012;37(19):E1209–17. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22531474

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Johnson JP, Lauryssen C, Cambron HO, Pashman R, Regan JJ, Anand N, et al. Sagittal alignment and the Bryan cervical artificial disc. Neurosurg Focus. 2004;17(6):E14. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15636571

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Pickett GE, Mitsis DK, Sekhon LH, Sears WR, Duggal N. Effects of a cervical disc prosthesis on segmental and cervical spine alignment. Neurosurg Focus. 2004;17(3):E5. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15636561

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Troyanovich SJ, Stroink AR, Kattner KA, Dornan WA, Gubina I. Does anterior plating maintain cervical lordosis versus conventional fusion techniques? A retrospective analysis of patients receiving single-level fusions. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2002;15(1):69–74. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11891456

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Xu J-X, Zhang Y-Z, Shen Y, Ding W-Y. Effect of modified techniques in Bryan cervical disc arthroplasty. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009;34(10):1012–7. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19404176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Shriver MF, Lubelski D, Sharma AM, Steinmetz MP, Benzel EC, Mroz TE. Adjacent segment degeneration and disease following cervical arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Spine J. 2016;16(2):168–81. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26515401

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Latka D, Kozlowska K, Miekisiak G, Latka K, Chowaniec J, Olbrycht T, et al. Safety and efficacy of cervical disc arthroplasty in preventing the adjacent segment disease: a meta-analysis of mid- to long-term outcomes in prospective, randomized, controlled multicenter studies. Ther Clin Risk Manag. 2019;15:531–9. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30992666

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  66. Zhu Y, Zhang B, Liu H, Wu Y, Zhu Q. Cervical disc arthroplasty versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for incidence of symptomatic adjacent segment disease: a meta-analysis of prospective randomized controlled trials. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016;41(19):1493–502. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26926472

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Luo J, Gong M, Huang S, Yu T, Zou X. Incidence of adjacent segment degeneration in cervical disc arthroplasty versus anterior cervical decompression and fusion meta-analysis of prospective studies. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2015;135(2):155–60. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25424753

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Zhong Z-M, Zhu S-Y, Zhuang J-S, Wu Q, Chen J-T. Reoperation after cervical disc arthroplasty versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a meta-analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2016;474(5):1307–16. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26831475

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  69. DiAngelo DJ, Roberston JT, Metcalf NH, McVay BJ, Davis RC. Biomechanical testing of an artificial cervical joint and an anterior cervical plate. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2003;16(4):314–23. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12902946

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Wigfield CC, Skrzypiec D, Jackowski A, Adams MA. Internal stress distribution in cervical intervertebral discs: the influence of an artificial cervical joint and simulated anterior interbody fusion. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2003;16(5):441–9. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14526192

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Pickett GE, Rouleau JP, Duggal N. Kinematic analysis of the cervical spine following implantation of an artificial cervical disc. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005;30(17):1949–54. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16135984

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Choi H, Purushothaman Y, Baisden J, Yoganandan N. Unique biomechanical signatures of Bryan, Prodisc C, and Prestige LP cervical disc replacements: a finite element modelling study. Eur Spine J. 2020;29(11):2631–9. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31606816

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Qureshi SA, Koehler SM, Lu Y, Cho S, Hecht AC. Utilization trends of cervical artificial disc replacement during the FDA investigational device exemption clinical trials compared to anterior cervical fusion. J Clin Neurosci. 2013;20(12):1723–6. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23972533

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Singh K, Vaccaro AR, Albert TJ. Assessing the potential impact of total disc arthroplasty on surgeon practice patterns in North America. Spine J. 4(6 Suppl):195S–201S. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15541667

  75. Chotai S, Sivaganesan A, Parker SL, Sielatycki JA, McGirt MJ, Devin CJ. Drivers of variability in 90-day cost for elective anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for cervical degenerative disease. Neurosurgery. 2018;83(5):898–904. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29718416

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Qureshi SA, McAnany S, Goz V, Koehler SM, Hecht AC. Cost-effectiveness analysis: comparing single-level cervical disc replacement and single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine. 2013;19(5):546–54. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24010896

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Warren D, Andres T, Hoelscher C, Ricart-Hoffiz P, Bendo J, Goldstein J. Cost-utility analysis modeling at 2-year follow-up for cervical disc arthroplasty versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a single-center contribution to the randomized controlled trial. Int J spine Surg. 2013;7:e58–66. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25694905

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  78. Radcliff K, Lerner J, Yang C, Bernard T, Zigler JE. Seven-year cost-effectiveness of ProDisc-C total disc replacement: results from investigational device exemption and post-approval studies. J Neurosurg Spine. 2016;24(5):760–8. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26824587

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedics, “Luigi Vanvitelli” University Hospital, Università degli Studi della Campania “Luigi Vanvitelli”, Napoli, Italy

    Luigi Aurelio Nasto & Enrico Pola

  2. Department of Trauma and Orthopaedics, “A. Gemelli” University Hospital, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore di Roma, Rome, Italy

    Carlo Logroscino

Authors
  1. Luigi Aurelio Nasto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Carlo Logroscino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Enrico Pola
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Spine Center, Rome American Hospital, Rome, Italy

    Pier Paolo Maria Menchetti

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Nasto, L.A., Logroscino, C., Pola, E. (2022). Arthroplasty in the Cervical Spine. In: Menchetti, P.P.M. (eds) Cervical Spine. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-94829-0_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-94829-0_10

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-94828-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-94829-0

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation