Cervical disc arthroplasty for less-mobile discs

Restricted access


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.

ABBREVIATIONS ACDF = 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.

Article Information

Correspondence Jau-Ching Wu: Neurological Institute, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan. jauching@gmail.com.

INCLUDE WHEN CITING Published online May 10, 2019; DOI: 10.3171/2019.2.SPINE181472.

Disclosures The authors report no conflict of interest concerning the materials or methods used in this study or the findings specified in this paper.

© AANS, except where prohibited by US copyright law.



  • View in gallery

    Radiographs of a patient in the preoperatively less-mobile group who underwent CDA with a Bryan cervical disc replacement for cervical spondylosis with myeloradiculopathy at the C5–6 level. The segmental ROM was 4° preoperatively and 21° postoperatively. Preoperative (A) and 28-month postoperative (B) lateral flexion-extension radiographs demonstrated marked restoration of C5–6 segmental motion (*flexion curve; @extension curve). C and D: Measurement of angular mobility in the postoperative flexion-extension radiographs.

  • View in gallery

    Radiographs of a patient in the preoperatively more-mobile group who underwent CDA with a Prestige LP artificial disc for cervical spondylosis with myeloradiculopathy at the C5–6 level. The segmental ROM was 11° preoperatively and 12° postoperatively. The preoperative (A and B) and 25-month postoperative (C and D) lateral flexion-extension radiographs demonstrated clear maintenance of the C5–6 segmental motion postoperatively.


  • 1

    Burkus JKHaid RWTraynelis VCMummaneni PV: 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 13:3083182010

  • 2

    Burkus JKTraynelis VCHaid RW JrMummaneni PV: 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 21:5165282014

  • 3

    Chang CCHuang WCWu JCMummaneni PV: The option of motion preservation in cervical spondylosis: cervical disc arthroplasty update. Neurospine 15:2963052018

  • 4

    Chang HCTu THChang HKWu JCFay LYChang PY: Hybrid corpectomy and disc arthroplasty for cervical spondylotic myelopathy caused by ossification of posterior longitudinal ligament and disc herniation. World Neurosurg 95:22302016

  • 5

    Chang HKChang CCTu THWu JCHuang WCFay LY: Can segmental mobility be increased by cervical arthroplasty? Neurosurg Focus 42(2):E32017

  • 6

    Chang HKHuang WCWu JCChang PYTu THFay LY: Should cervical disc arthroplasty be done on patients with increased intramedullary signal intensity on magnetic resonance imaging? World Neurosurg 89:4894962016

  • 7

    Chang PYChang HKWu JCHuang WCFay LYTu TH: Differences between C3–4 and other subaxial levels of cervical disc arthroplasty: more heterotopic ossification at the 5-year follow-up. J Neurosurg Spine 24:7527592016

  • 8

    Chang PYChang HKWu JCHuang WCFay LYTu TH: Is cervical disc arthroplasty good for congenital cervical stenosis? J Neurosurg Spine 26:5775852017

  • 9

    Coric DGuyer RDNunley PDMusante DCarmody CGordon C: 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 28:2522612018

  • 10

    Coric DKim PKClemente JDBoltes MONussbaum MJames S: 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 18:36422013

  • 11

    Coric DNunley PDGuyer RDMusante DCarmody CNGordon CR: 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 15:3483582011

  • 12

    Dang ABHu SSTay BK: 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) 33:6076112008

  • 13

    Davis RJKim KDHisey MSHoffman GABae HWGaede SE: 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 19:5325452013

  • 14

    Delamarter RBZigler J: Five-year reoperation rates, cervical total disc replacement versus fusion, results of a prospective randomized clinical trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 38:7117172013

  • 15

    DiAngelo DJFoley KTMorrow BRSchwab JSSong JGerman JW: In vitro biomechanics of cervical disc arthroplasty with the ProDisc-C total disc implant. Neurosurg Focus 17(3):E72004

  • 16

    Eck JCHumphreys SCLim THJeong STKim JGHodges SD: Biomechanical study on the effect of cervical spine fusion on adjacent-level intradiscal pressure and segmental motion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 27:243124342002

  • 17

    Fay LYHuang WCTsai TYWu JCKo CCTu TH: Differences between arthroplasty and anterior cervical fusion in two-level cervical degenerative disc disease. Eur Spine J 23:6276342014

  • 18

    Fay LYHuang WCWu JCChang HKTsai TYKo CC: Arthroplasty for cervical spondylotic myelopathy: similar results to patients with only radiculopathy at 3 years’ follow-up. J Neurosurg Spine 21:4004102014

  • 19

    Gandhi AAKode SDeVries NAGrosland NMSmucker JDFredericks DC: Biomechanical analysis of cervical disc replacement and fusion using single level, two level, and hybrid constructs. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 40:157815852015

  • 20

    Gore DR: Roentgenographic findings in the cervical spine in asymptomatic persons: a ten-year follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 26: 246324662001

  • 21

    Gornet MFBurkus JKShaffrey MEArgires PJNian HHarrell FE Jr: Cervical disc arthroplasty with PRESTIGE LP disc versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a prospective, multicenter investigational device exemption study. J Neurosurg Spine 23:5585732015

  • 22

    Heller JGSasso RCPapadopoulos SMAnderson PAFessler RGHacker RJ: 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) 34:1011072009

  • 23

    Jackson RJDavis RJHoffman GABae HWHisey MSKim KD: 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 Spine 24:7347452016

  • 24

    Kotani YCunningham BWAbumi KDmitriev AEIto MHu N: Multidirectional flexibility analysis of cervical artificial disc reconstruction: in vitro human cadaveric spine model. J Neurosurg Spine 2:1881942005

  • 25

    Kowalczyk ILazaro BCFink MRabin DDuggal N: Analysis of in vivo kinematics of 3 different cervical devices: Bryan disc, ProDisc-C, and Prestige LP disc. J Neurosurg Spine 15:6306352011

  • 26

    Li YFogel GRLiao ZTyagi RLiu W: Prosthesis and hybrid strategy consideration for treating two-level cervical disc degeneration in hybrid surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 43:3793872018

  • 27

    Lopez-Espina CGAmirouche FHavalad V: Multilevel cervical fusion and its effect on disc degeneration and osteophyte formation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31:9729782006

  • 28

    Mummaneni PVAmin BYWu JCBrodt EDDettori JRSasso RC: 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 3 (S1):59662012

  • 29

    Mummaneni PVBurkus JKHaid RWTraynelis VCZdeblick TA: Clinical and radiographic analysis of cervical disc arthroplasty compared with allograft fusion: a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Neurosurg Spine 6:1982092007

  • 30

    Murrey DJanssen MDelamarter RGoldstein JZigler JTay B: 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 9:2752862009

  • 31

    Puttlitz CMRousseau MAXu ZHu STay BKLotz JC: Intervertebral disc replacement maintains cervical spine kinetics. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 29:280928142004

  • 32

    Radcliff KCoric DAlbert 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 25:2132242016

  • 33

    Radcliff KDavis RJHisey MSNunley PDHoffman GAJackson RJ: Long-term evaluation of cervical disc arthroplasty with the Mobi-C© cervical disc: a randomized, prospective, multicenter clinical trial with seven-year follow-up. Int J Spine Surg 11:312017

  • 34

    Tu THChang CCWu JCFay LYHuang WCCheng H: Resection of uncovertebral joints and posterior longitudinal ligament for cervical disc arthroplasty. Neurosurg Focus 42 (Video Suppl 1):V22017

  • 35

    Tu THWu JCCheng HMummaneni PV: Hybrid cervical disc arthroplasty. Neurosurg Focus 42 (Video Suppl 1):V52017

  • 36

    Tu THWu JCHuang WCChang HKKo CCFay LY: 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 22:4474532015

  • 37

    Tu THWu JCHuang WCGuo WYWu CLShih YH: Heterotopic ossification after cervical total disc replacement: determination by CT and effects on clinical outcomes. J Neurosurg Spine 14:4574652011

  • 38

    Tu THWu JCHuang WCWu CLKo CCCheng H: 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 16:6016092012

  • 39

    Upadhyaya CDWu JCTrost GHaid RWTraynelis VCTay B: Analysis of the three United States Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption cervical arthroplasty trials. J Neurosurg Spine 16:2162282012

  • 40

    Wu JCHsieh PCMummaneni PVWang MY: Spinal motion preservation surgery. BioMed Res Int 2015:3725022015

  • 41

    Wu JCHuang WCTsai HWKo CCFay LYTu TH: Differences between 1- and 2-level cervical arthroplasty: more heterotopic ossification in 2-level disc replacement: Clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 16:5946002012

  • 42

    Wu JCHuang WCTu THTsai HWKo CCWu CL: Differences between soft-disc herniation and spondylosis in cervical arthroplasty: CT-documented heterotopic ossification with minimum 2 years of follow-up. J Neurosurg Spine 16:1631712012




All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 97 97 97
Full Text Views 20 20 20
PDF Downloads 13 13 13
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0


Google Scholar