Cervical arthroplasty: A critical review of the literature

Spine Journal

Volumn 14, Issue 9, 2014, Pages 2231-2245

  Alvin, Matthew D ^a,b   Abbott, E Emily ^a,c   Lubelski, Daniel ^a,d   Kuhns, Benjamin ^a,b   Nowacki, Amy S ^c,d   Steinmetz, Michael P ^a,e   Benzel, Edward C ^a,c,d   Mroz, Thomas E ^a,c,d  

^a Center for Spine Health   (United States)

^b CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c LERNER RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

^d CLEVELAND CLINIC LERNER COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^e METROHEALTH MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Adjacent segment disease; Arthroplasty; Cervical disc arthroplasty; Fusion; Heterotopic ossification; Outcomes

Indexed keywords

ARTHROPLASTY; ARTICLE; CERVICAL ARTHROPLASTY; CONFLICT OF INTEREST; DISK PROSTHESIS; FOLLOW UP; HETEROTOPIC OSSIFICATION; HUMAN; INTERVERTEBRAL DISKECTOMY; MEDLINE; META ANALYSIS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY OF LIFE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); SAMPLE SIZE; STUDY DESIGN; ADVERSE EFFECTS; AGED; CERVICAL SPINE; INTERVERTEBRAL DISC DEGENERATION; INTERVERTEBRAL DISK; JOINT CHARACTERISTICS AND FUNCTIONS; PROCEDURES; SPINE FUSION; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

AGED; ARTHROPLASTY; CERVICAL VERTEBRAE; HUMANS; INTERVERTEBRAL DISC; INTERVERTEBRAL DISC DEGENERATION; RANGE OF MOTION, ARTICULAR; SPINAL FUSION; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84906934546     PISSN: 15299430     EISSN: 18781632     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2014.03.047     Document Type: Review

References (94)

1. S. Yin, X. Yu, and S. Zhou et al. Is cervical disc arthroplasty superior to fusion for treatment of symptomatic cervical disc disease? A meta-analysis Clin Orthop Relat Res 471 2013 1904 1919
2. D. Xing, X. Ma, and J. Ma et al. A meta-analysis of cervical arthroplasty compared to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for single-level cervical disc disease J Clin Neurosci 20 2013 970 978
3. C.H. Oh, and S.H. Yoon Past, present, and future of cervical arthroplasty Keio J Med 62 2013 47 52
4. M.M. Yu Gao, M. Liu, and T. Li et al. 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 2013 555 561
5. T.F.M. Boselie, P.C. Willems, and H. van Mameren et al. Arthroplasty versus fusion in single-level cervical degenerative disc disease: a Cochrane review Spine 38 2013 E1096 E1107
6. M. Cepoiu-Martin, P. Faris, and D. Lorenzetti et al. Artificial cervical disc arthroplasty: a systematic review Spine 36 2011 E1623 E1633
7. R. Bartels, R. Donk, and A.L.M. Verbeek No justification for cervical disk prostheses in clinical practice: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials Neurosurgery 66 2010 1153 1160
8. P.C. McAfee, C. Reah, and K. Gilder et al. 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 2012 943 952
9. Y. Lu, A.C. Hecht, S. Cho, and S. Qureshi Cervical disc arthroplasty versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a systematic review Orthop Muscul Syst S2 2012 002
10. M. Bhandari, J.W. Busse, and D. Jackowski et al. Association between industry funding and statistically significant pro-industry findings in medical and surgical randomized trials CMAJ 170 2004 477 480
11. D.L. Sackett, S.E. Strauss, and W.S. Richardson et al. Evidence-based medicine: how to practice and teach EBM 2000 Churchill Livingstone Philadelphia, PA
12. D.K. Resnick, T.F. Choudhri, and A.T. Dailey Guidelines for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part I. Introduction and methodology J Neurosurg Spine 2 2005 637 638
13. J.W. Scott Scott's Parabola: the rise and fall of a surgical technique Br Med J 323 2001 1477
14. NASS Disclosure Policy. Available at: http://www.spine.org/Pages/ PracticePolicy/EthicsProfConduct/NASSDisclosurePolicy. Accessed March 1, 2012.
15. R.C. Sasso, J.D. Smucker, R.J. Hacker, and J.G. Heller Artificial disc versus fusion. A prospective, randomized study with 2-year follow-up on 99 patients Spine 26 2007 2933 2940
16. R.C. Sasso, J.D. Smucker, R.J. Hacker, and J.G. Heller Clinical outcomes of BRYAN cervical disc arthroplasty: a prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter trial with 24-month follow-up J Spinal Disord Tech 20 2007 481 491
17. R.J. Hacker Cervical disc arthroplasty: a controlled randomized prospective study with intermediate follow-up results J Neurosurg Spine 3 2005 424 428
18. D. Coric, F. Finger, and P. Boltes Prospective randomized controlled study of the Bryan Cervical Disc: early clinical results from a single investigational site J Neurosurg Spine 4 2006 31 35
19. G.E. Pickett, L.H. Sekhon, and W.R. Sears Complications with cervical arthroplasty J Neurosurg Spine 4 2006 98 105
20. G.E. Pickett, D.K. Mitsis, and L.H. Sekhon et al. Effects of a cervical disc prosthesis on segmental and cervical alignment Neurosurg Focus 17 2004 E5
21. J.T. Robertson, S.M. Papadopoulos, and V.C. Traynelis Assessment of adjacent segment disease in patients treated with cervical fusion or arthroplasty: a prospective 2-year study J Neurosurg Spine 3 2005 417 423
22. J. Lafuente, A.T. Casey, A. Petzold, and S. Brew The Bryan cervical disc prosthesis as an alternative to arthrodesis in the treatment of cervical spondylosis J Bone Joint Surg Br 57 2005 508 512
23. L. Sekhon, W. Sears, and N. Duggal Cervical arthroplasty after previous surgery: results of treating 24 discs in 15 patients J Neurosurg Spine 3 2005 335 341
24. N. Duggal, G.E. Pickett, D. Mitsis, and J.L. Keller Early clinical and biomechanical results following cervical arthroplasty Neurosurg Focus 17 2004 E9
25. P.A. Anderson, R.C. Sasso, and J.P. Rouleau et al. The Bryan Cervical Disc: wear properties and early clinical results Spine J 4 2004 303 309
26. J. Goffin, F. Van Calenbergh, and J. van Loon et al. Intermediate follow-up after treatment of degenerative disc disease with the Bryan Cervical Disc Prosthesis: single level and bi-level Spine 29 2003 2673 2678
27. V.E. Bryan Cervical motion segment replacement Eur Spine J 11 2002 S92 S97
28. D.H. Yoon, S. Yi, and H.C. Shin et al. Clinical and radiological following cervical arthroplasty Acta Neurochir (Wien) 148 2006 943 950
29. C. Leung, A. Casey, and J. Goffin et al. Clinical significance of heterotopic ossification in cervical disc replacement: a prospective multicenter clinical trial Neurosurgery 57 2005 759 763
30. L. Sekhon Cervical arthroplasty in the management of spondylotic myelopathy J Spinal Disord Tech 16 2003 307 313
31. C.S. Shim, S. Lee, and H. Park Early clinical and radiologic outcomes of cervical arthroplasty with Bryan Cervical Disc Prosthesis J Spinal Disord Tech 19 2006 465 470
32. D. Coric, P.K. Kim, and J.D. Clemente 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 18 2013 36 42
33. X. Zhang, X. Zhang, and C. Chen et al. Randomized, controlled, multicenter, clinical trial comparing BRYAN cervical disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical decompression and fusion in China Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 37 2012 433 438
34. L. Cheng, L. Nie, and M. Li et al. Superiority of the BRYAN(®) disc prosthesis for cervical myelopathy: a randomized study with 3-year follow-up Clin Orthop Relat Res 469 2011 3408 3414
35. R.C. Sasso, P.A. Anderson, K.D. Riew, and J.G. Heller 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 2011 1684 1692
36. B.J. Garrido, T.A. Taha, and R.C. Sasso Clinical outcomes of Bryan cervical disc arthroplasty a prospective, randomized, controlled, single site trial with 48-month follow-up J Spinal Disord Tech 23 2010 367 371
37. J.G. Heller, R.C. Sasso, and S.M. Papadopoulos 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 34 2009 101 107
38. S. Yang, X. Wu, and Y. Hu et al. Early and intermediate follow-up results after treatment of degenerative disc disease with the Bryan cervical disc prosthesis: single- and multiple-level Spine 20 2008 E371 E377
39. G.M. Quan, J.M. Vital, S. Hansen, and V. Pointillart Eight-year clinical and radiological follow-up of the Bryan cervical disc arthroplasty Spine 36 2011 639 646
40. X. Ren, W. Wang, and T. Chu et al. The intermediate clinical outcome and its limitations of Bryan cervical arthroplasty for treatment of cervical disc herniation J Spinal Disord Tech 24 2011 221 229
41. D. Coric, J. Cassis, J.D. Carew, and M.O. Boltes Prospective study of cervical arthroplasty in 98 patients involved in 1 of 3 separate investigational device exemption studies from a single investigational site with a minimum 2-year follow-up. Clinical article J Neurosurg Spine 13 2010 715 721
42. J. Goffin, J. van Loon, F. Van Calenbergh, and B. Lipscomb A clinical analysis of 4- and 6-year follow-up results after cervical disc replacement surgery using the Bryan Cervical Disc Prosthesis J Neurosurg Spine 12 2010 261 269
43. K.S. Ryu, C.K. Park, S.C. Jun, and H.Y. Huh Radiological changes of the operated and adjacent segments following cervical arthroplasty after a minimum 24-month follow-up: comparison between the Bryan and ProDisc-C devices J Neurosurg Spine 13 2010 299 307
44. J. Walraevans, P. Demaerel, and P. Suetens et al. Longitudinal prospective long-term radiographic follow-up after treatment of single-level cervical disk disease with the Bryan Cervical Disc Neurosurgery 67 2010 679 687
45. A.K. Bhadra, A.S. Raman, A.T. Casey, and R.J. Crawford Single-level cervical radiculopathy: clinical outcome and cost-effectiveness of four techniques of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion and disc arthroplasty Eur Spine J 18 2009 232 237
46. Y.C. Yang, L. Nie, L. Cheng, and Y. Hou Clinical and radiographic reports following cervical arthroplasty: a 24-month follow-up Int Orthop 33 2009 1037 1042
47. L. Cheng, L. Nie, L. Zhang, and Y. Hou Fusion versus Bryan Cervical Disc in two-level cervical disc disease: a prospective, randomised study Int Orthop 33 2009 1347 1351
48. V. Heidecke, W. Burkert, M. Brucke, and N.G. Rainov Intervertebral disc replacement for cervical degenerative disease - clinical results and functional outcome at two years in patients implanted with the Bryan cervical disc prosthesis Acta Neurochir (Wien) 150 2008 453 459
49. S.W. Kim, J.H. Shin, and J.J. Arbatin et al. 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 2008 20 29
50. Y. Wang, B. Cai, and X.S. Zhang et al. Clinical outcomes of single level Bryan cervical disc arthroplasty: a prospective controlled study [in Chinese] Zhonghua Wai Ke Za Zhi 46 2008 328 332
51. C. Ding, Y. Hong, and H. Liu et al. Intermediate clinical outcome of Bryan Cervical Disc replacement for degenerative disk disease and its effect on adjacent segment disks Orthopedics 35 2012 e909 e916
52. T.H. Tu, J.C. Wu, and W.C. Huang et al. Heterotopic ossification after cervical total disc replacement: determination by CT and effects on clinical outcomes J Neurosurg Spine 14 2011 457 465
53. J.H. Lee, T.G. Jung, and H.S. Kim et al. Analysis of the incidence and clinical effect of the heterotopic ossification in a single-level cervical artificial disc replacement Spine J 10 2010 676 682
54. H.K. Kim, M.H. Kim, D.S. Cho, and S.H. Kim Surgical outcome of cervical arthroplasty using bryan(r) J Korean Neurosurg Soc 46 2009 532 537
55. C.C. Wigfield, S.S. Gill, and R.J. Nelson et al. The new Frenchay artificial cervical joint: results from a two-year pilot study Spine 27 2002 2446 2452
56. F. Porchet, H. Newton, and B.S. Metcalf Clinical outcomes with the Prestige II cervical disc: preliminary results from a prospective randomized clinical trial Neurosurg Focus 17 2004 E6
57. P.V. Mummaneni, J.K. Burkus, and R.W. Haid et al. Clinical and radiographic analysis of cervical disc arthroplasty compared with allograft fusion: a randomized controlled clinical trial J Neurosurg Spine 6 2007 198 209
58. J.T. Robertson, and N.H. Metcalf Long-term outcome after implantation of the Prestige I disc in an end-stage indication: 4-year results from a pilot study Neurosurg Focus 17 2004 E10
59. J.K. Burkus, R.W. Haid, V.C. Traynelis, and P.V. Mummaneni 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 2010 308 318
60. K.D. Riew, J.M. Buchowski, and R. Sasso et al. Cervical disc arthroplasty compared with arthrodesis for the treatment of myelopathy J Bone Joint Surg Am 90 2008 2354 2364
61. C.W. Peng, W.M. Yue, and A. Basit et al. Intermediate results of the prestige LP cervical disc replacement: clinical and radiological analysis with minimum two-year follow-up Spine 36 2011 E105 E111
62. J. Riina, A. Patel, and J.W. Dietz et al. Comparison of single-level cervical fusion and a metal-on-metal cervical disc replacement device Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ) 37 2008 E71 E77
63. F.M. Phillips, J.Y. Lee, and F.H. Geisler et al. 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 2013 E907 E918
64. L. Pimenta, P.C. McAfee, and A. Cappuccino et al. Superiority of multilevel cervical arthroplasty outcomes versus single-level outcomes. 229 consecutive PCM prostheses Spine 32 2007 1337 1344
65. L. Pimenta, P.C. McAfee, and A. Cappuccino et al. Clinical experience with the new artificial cervical PCM (Cervitech) disc Spine J 4 2004 315S 321S
66. P.C. McAfee The indications for lumbar and cervical disc replacement Spine J 4 2004 177S 181S
67. A. Nabhan, F. Ahlhelm, and K. Shariat et al. The ProDisc-C prosthesis: clinical and radiological experience 1 year after surgery Spine 32 2007 1935 1941
68. A. Nabhan, F. Ahlhelm, and T. Pitzen Disc replacement using Pro-Disc C versus fusion: a prospective randomised and controlled radiographic and clinical study Eur Spine J 16 2007 423 430
69. C. Mehren, P. Suchomel, and F. Grochulla et al. Heterotopic ossification in total cervical artificial disc replacement Spine 31 2006 2802 2806
70. R. Bertagnoli, J.J. Yue, and F. Pfeiffer et al. Early results after ProDisc-C cervical disc replacement J Neurosurg Spine 2 2005 403 410
71. R. Bertagnoli, N. Duggal, and E.P. Gwynedd et al. Cervical total disc replacement, part two: clinical results Orthop Clin North Am 36 2005 355 362
72. D. Murrey, M. Janssen, and R. Delamarter 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 2009 275 286
73. M.P. Kelly, J.M. Mok, R.F. Frisch, and B.K. Tay Adjacent segment motion after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion versus ProDisc-c cervical total disk arthroplasty: analysis from a randomized, controlled trial Spine 36 2011 1171 1179
74. T. Kesman, D. Murrey, and B. Darden Single-center results at 7 years of prospective, randomized ProDisc-C total disc arthroplasty versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for treatment of one level symptomatic cervical disc disease Evid Based Spine Care J 3 2012 61 62
75. J.E. Zigler, R. Delamarter, and D. Murrey et al. 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 2013 203 209
76. P. Suchomel, L. Jurak, and V. Benes et al. Clinical results and development of heterotopic ossification in total cervical disc replacement during a 4-year follow-up Eur Spine J 19 2010 307 315
77. C.W. Peng, M. Quirno, and J.A. Bendo et al. Effect of intervertebral disc height on postoperative motion and clinical outcomes after ProDisc-C cervical disc replacement Spine J 9 2009 551 555
78. S.H. Kim, H.C. Shin, and D.A. Shin et al. Early clinical experience with the mobi-C disc prosthesis Yonsei Med J 48 2007 457 464
79. J.H. Park, K.H. Roh, and J.Y. Cho et al. Comparative analysis of cervical arthroplasty using mobi-c(r) and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion using the solis(r)-cage J Korean Neurosurg Soc 44 2008 217 221
80. J.H. Park, S.C. Rhim, and S.W. Roh Mid-term follow-up of clinical and radiologic outcomes in cervical total disk replacement (Mobi-C): incidence of heterotopic ossification and risk factors J Spinal Disord Tech 26 2013 141 145
81. P. Guérin, I. Obeid, and A. Bourghli et al. Heterotopic ossification after cervical disc replacement: clinical significance and radiographic analysis. A prospective study Acta Orthop Belg 78 2012 80 86
82. S.E. Lee, C.K. Chung, and T.A. Jahng Early development and progression of heterotopic ossification in cervical total disc replacement J Neurosurg Spine 16 2012 31 36
83. J. Beaurain, P. Bernard, and T. Dufour et al. Intermediate clinical and radiological results of cervical TDR (Mobi-C) with up to 2 years of follow-up Eur Spine J 18 2009 841 850
84. J. Huppert, J. Beaurain, and J.P. Steib et al. Comparison between single- and multi-level patients: clinical and radiological outcomes 2 years after cervical disc replacement Eur Spine J 20 2011 1417 1426
85. Eisner W. First and only two-level cervical disc approved in U.S. Available at: http://www.ryortho.com/. Accessed August 29, 2013.
86. D. Coric, P.D. Nunley, and R.D. Guyer et al. 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 2011 348 358
87. C.V. Maldonado, R.D. Paz, and C.B. Martin Adjacent-level degeneration after cervical disc arthroplasty versus fusion Eur Spine J 20 2011 403 407
88. J. Du, M. Li, and H. Liu et al. Early follow-up outcomes after treatment of degenerative disc disease with the discover cervical disc prosthesis Spine J 11 2011 281 289
89. J. Li, L. Liang, and X.F. Ye et al. Cervical arthroplasty with discover prosthesis: clinical outcomes and analysis of factors that may influence postoperative range of motion Eur Spine J 22 2013 2303 2309
90. The Spine Market Group, Medtech Insight, The Advisory Board Online Cervical disc arthroplasty 2013 The Market Available at: http://www. thespinemarketgroup.com/ Accessed March 1, 2012
91. S. Yi, D.A. Shin, and K.N. Kim The predisposing factors for the heterotopic ossification after cervical artificial disc replacement Spine J 13 2013 1048 1054
92. S. Yi, K.N. Kim, and M.S. Yang Difference in occurrence of heterotopic ossification according to prosthesis type in the cervical artificial disc replacement Spine 35 2010 1556 1561
93. J.A. Blum, K. Freeman, R.C. Dart, and R.J. Cooper Requirements and definitions in conflict of interest policies of medical journals JAMA 302 2009 2230 2234
94. R. DerSimonian, and N.M. Laird Meta-analysis in clinical trials Control Clin Trials 7 1986 177 188