The published clinical trials of cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) have unanimously demonstrated the success of preservation of motion (average 7°–9°) at the index level for up to 10 years postoperatively. The inclusion criteria in these trials usually required patients to have evident mobility at the level to be treated (≥ 2° on lateral flexion-extension radiographs) prior to the surgery. Although the mean range of motion (ROM) remained similar after CDA, it was unclear in these trials if patients with less preoperative ROM would have different outcomes than patients with more ROM.
A series of consecutive patients who underwent CDA at the level of C5–6 were followed up and retrospectively reviewed. The indications for surgery were medically refractory cervical radiculopathy, myelopathy, or both, caused by cervical disc herniation or spondylosis. All patients were assigned to 1 of 2 groups: a less-mobile group, which consisted of those patients who had an ROM of ≤ 5° at C5–6 preoperatively, or a more-mobile group, which consisted of patients whose ROM at C5–6 was > 5° preoperatively. Clinical outcomes, including visual analog scale, Neck Disability Index, and Japanese Orthopaedic Association Scale scores, were evaluated at each time point. Radiological outcomes were also assessed.
A total of 60 patients who had follow-up for more than 2 years were analyzed. There were 27 patients in the less-mobile group (mean preoperative ROM 3.0°) and 33 in the more-mobile group (mean ROM 11.7°). The 2 groups were similar in demographics, including age, sex, diabetes, and cigarette smoking. Both groups had significant improvements in clinical outcomes, with no significant differences between the 2 groups. However, the radiological evaluations demonstrated remarkable differences. The less-mobile group had a greater increase in ΔROM than the more-mobile group (ΔROM 5.5° vs 0.1°, p = 0.001), though the less-mobile group still had less segmental mobility (ROM 8.5° vs 11.7°, p = 0.04). The rates of complications were similar in both groups.
Preoperative segmental mobility did not alter the clinical outcomes of CDA. The preoperatively less-mobile (ROM ≤ 5°) discs had similar clinical improvements and greater increase of segmental mobility (ΔROM), but remained less mobile, than the preoperatively more-mobile (ROM > 5°) discs at 2 years postoperatively.
ABBREVIATIONSACDF = anterior cervical discectomy and fusion; ASD = adjacent-segment degeneration; CDA = cervical disc arthroplasty; HO = heterotopic ossification; JOA = Japanese Orthopaedic Association; NDI = Neck Disability Index; PLL = posterior longitudinal ligament; ROM = range of motion; VAS = visual analog scale.
BurkusJKHaidRWTraynelisVCMummaneniPV: Long-term clinical and radiographic outcomes of cervical disc replacement with the Prestige disc: results from a prospective randomized controlled clinical trial. J Neurosurg Spine13:308–3182010
BurkusJKTraynelisVCHaidRWJrMummaneniPV: 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 Spine21:516–5282014
ChangHCTuTHChangHKWuJCFayLYChangPY: Hybrid corpectomy and disc arthroplasty for cervical spondylotic myelopathy caused by ossification of posterior longitudinal ligament and disc herniation. World Neurosurg95:22–302016
ChangPYChangHKWuJCHuangWCFayLYTuTH: Differences between C3–4 and other subaxial levels of cervical disc arthroplasty: more heterotopic ossification at the 5-year follow-up. J Neurosurg Spine24:752–7592016
CoricDGuyerRDNunleyPDMusanteDCarmodyCGordonC: 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 Spine28:252–2612018
CoricDKimPKClementeJDBoltesMONussbaumMJamesS: 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 Spine18:36–422013
CoricDNunleyPDGuyerRDMusanteDCarmodyCNGordonCR: 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 Spine15:348–3582011
DangABHuSSTayBK: Biomechanics of the anterior longitudinal ligament during 8 g whiplash simulation following single- and contiguous two-level fusion: a finite element study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976)33:607–6112008
DavisRJKimKDHiseyMSHoffmanGABaeHWGaedeSE: 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 Spine19:532–5452013
GandhiAAKodeSDeVriesNAGroslandNMSmuckerJDFredericksDC: Biomechanical analysis of cervical disc replacement and fusion using single level, two level, and hybrid constructs. Spine (Phila Pa 1976)40:1578–15852015
HellerJGSassoRCPapadopoulosSMAndersonPAFesslerRGHackerRJ: 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)34:101–1072009
JacksonRJDavisRJHoffmanGABaeHWHiseyMSKimKD: Subsequent surgery rates after cervical total disc replacement using a Mobi-C Cervical Disc Prosthesis versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a prospective randomized clinical trial with 5-year follow-up. J Neurosurg Spine24:734–7452016
MummaneniPVAminBYWuJCBrodtEDDettoriJRSassoRC: 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 J3 (S1):59–662012
MurreyDJanssenMDelamarterRGoldsteinJZiglerJTayB: 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 J9:275–2862009
TuTHWuJCHuangWCChangHKKoCCFayLY: 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 Spine22:447–4532015
TuTHWuJCHuangWCWuCLKoCCChengH: 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 Spine16:601–6092012
UpadhyayaCDWuJCTrostGHaidRWTraynelisVCTayB: Analysis of the three United States Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption cervical arthroplasty trials. J Neurosurg Spine16:216–2282012
WuJCHuangWCTuTHTsaiHWKoCCWuCL: Differences between soft-disc herniation and spondylosis in cervical arthroplasty: CT-documented heterotopic ossification with minimum 2 years of follow-up. J Neurosurg Spine16:163–1712012