Longitudinal assessment of segmental motion of the cervical spine following total disc arthroplasty: a comparative analysis of devices

View More View Less
  • 1 Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois
Restricted access

Purchase Now

USD  $45.00

Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $376.00

JNS + Pediatrics + Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $612.00
Print or Print + Online Sign in

OBJECTIVE

Total disc arthroplasty (TDA) has been shown to be an effective and safe treatment for cervical degenerative disc disease at short- and midterm follow-up. However, there remains a paucity of literature reporting the differences between individual prosthesis designs with regard to device performance. In this study, the authors evaluated the long-term maintenance of segmental range of motion (ROM) at the operative cervical level across a diverse range of TDA devices.

METHODS

In this study, the authors retrospectively evaluated all consecutive patients who underwent 1- or 2-level cervical TDA between 2005 and 2020 at a single institution. Patients with a minimum of 6 months of follow-up and lateral flexion/extension radiographs preoperatively, 2 months postoperatively, and at final follow-up were included. Radiographic measurements included static segmental lordosis, segmental range of motion (ROM) on flexion/extension, global cervical (C2–7) ROM on flexion/extension, and disc space height. The paired t-test was used to evaluate improvement in radiographic parameters. Subanalysis between devices was performed using one-way ANCOVA. Significance was determined at p < 0.05.

RESULTS

A total of 85 patients (100 discs) were included, with a mean patient age of 46.01 ± 8.82 years and follow-up of 43.56 ± 39.36 months. Implantations included 22 (22.00%) M6-C, 51 (51.00%) Mobi-C, 14 (14.00%) PCM, and 13 (13.00%) ProDisc-C devices. There were no differences in baseline radiographic parameters between groups. At 2 months postoperatively, PCM provided significantly less segmental lordosis (p = 0.037) and segmental ROM (p = 0.039). At final follow-up, segmental ROM with both the PCM and ProDisc-C devices was significantly less than that with the M6-C and Mobi-C devices (p = 0.015). From preoperatively to 2 months postoperatively, PCM implantation led to a significant loss of lordosis (p < 0.001) and segmental ROM (p = 0.005) relative to the other devices. Moreover, a significantly greater decline in segmental ROM from 2 months postoperatively to final follow-up was seen with ProDisc-C, while segmental ROM increased significantly over time with Mobi-C (p = 0.049).

CONCLUSIONS

Analysis by TDA device brand demonstrated that motion preservation differs depending on disc design. Certain devices, including M6-C and Mobi-C, improve ROM on flexion/extension from preoperatively to postoperatively and continue to increase slightly at final follow-up. On the other hand, devices such as PCM and ProDisc-C contributed to greater segmental stiffness, with a gradual decline in ROM seen with ProDisc-C. Further studies are needed to understand how much segmental ROM is ideal after TDA for preservation of physiological cervical kinematics.

ABBREVIATIONS

ACDF = anterior cervical discectomy and fusion; HO = heterotopic ossification; ROM = range of motion; TDA = total disc arthroplasty.

Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $376.00

JNS + Pediatrics + Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $612.00
  • 1

    Fountas KN, Kapsalaki EZ, Nikolakakos LG, et al. Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion associated complications. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007;32(21):23102317.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2

    Crawford CH III, Carreon LY, Mummaneni P, Dryer RF, Glassman SD. Asymptomatic ACDF nonunions underestimate the true prevalence of radiographic pseudarthrosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2020;45(13):E776E780.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3

    Matsumoto M, Okada E, Ichihara D, et al. Anterior cervical decompression and fusion accelerates adjacent segment degeneration: comparison with asymptomatic volunteers in a ten-year magnetic resonance imaging follow-up study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010;35(1):3643.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4

    Eck JC, Humphreys SC, Lim TH, et al. Biomechanical study on the effect of cervical spine fusion on adjacent-level intradiscal pressure and segmental motion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2002;27(22):24312434.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5

    Loidolt T, Kurra S, Daniel Riew K, Levi AD, Florman J, Lavelle WF. Comparison of adverse events between cervical disc arthroplasty and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a 10-year follow-up. Spine J. 2021;21(2):253264.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6

    Zarkadis NJ, Cleveland AW, Kusnezov NA, Dunn JC, Caram PM, Herzog JP. Outcomes following multilevel cervical disc arthroplasty in the young active population. Mil Med. 2017;182(3):e1790e1794.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7

    Auerbach JD, Anakwenze OA, Milby AH, Lonner BS, Balderston RA. Segmental contribution toward total cervical range of motion: a comparison of cervical disc arthroplasty and fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011;36(25):E1593E1599.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8

    Hui N, Phan K, Lee MY, Kerferd J, Singh T, Mobbs RJ. The changes in cervical biomechanics after CTDR and its association with heterotopic ossification: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Global Spine J. 2021;11(4):565574.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9

    Phillips FM, Geisler FH, Gilder KM, Reah C, Howell KM, McAfee PC. Long-term outcomes of the US FDA IDE prospective, randomized controlled clinical trial comparing PCM cervical disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015;40(10):674683.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10

    Radcliff K, Davis RJ, Hisey MS, et al. 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. 2017;11(4):31.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11

    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):317325.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12

    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):601608.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13

    Zavras AG, Sullivan TB, Singh K, Phillips FM, Colman MW. Failure in cervical total disc arthroplasty: single institution experience, systematic review of the literature, and proposal of the RUSH TDA failure classification system. Spine J. 2022;22(3):353369.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14

    Cepoiu-Martin M, Faris P, Lorenzetti D, Prefontaine E, Noseworthy T, Sutherland L. Artificial cervical disc arthroplasty: a systematic review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011;36(25):E1623E1633.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15

    Farfan HF. Mechanical Disorders of the Low Back. Lea & Febiger; 1973.

  • 16

    Kuo YH, Kuo CH, Chang HK, et al. The effect of T1-slope in spinal parameters after cervical disc arthroplasty. Neurosurgery. 2020;87(6):12311239.

  • 17

    Tu TH, Kuo CH, Huang WC, Fay LY, Cheng H, Wu JC. Effects of smoking on cervical disc arthroplasty. J Neurosurg Spine. 2019;30(2):168174.

  • 18

    Kim SW, Paik SH, Castro PAF, et al. Analysis of factors that may influence range of motion after cervical disc arthroplasty. Spine J. 2010;10(8):683688.

  • 19

    Janssen ME, Zigler JE, Spivak JM, Delamarter RB, Darden BVI II, Kopjar B. ProDisc-C total disc replacement versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for single-level symptomatic cervical disc disease: seven-year follow-up of the prospective randomized U.S. Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2015;97(21):17381747.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20

    Phillips FM, Coric D, Sasso R, et al. Prospective, multicenter clinical trial comparing M6-C compressible six degrees of freedom cervical disc with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for the treatment of single-level degenerative cervical radiculopathy: 2-year results of an FDA investigational device exemption study. Spine J. 2021;21(2):239252.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21

    Duggal N, Bertagnoli R, Rabin D, Wharton N, Kowalczyk I. ProDisc-C: an in vivo kinematic study. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2011;24(5):334339.

  • 22

    Yi S, Lee DY, Kim DH, et al. Cervical artificial disc replacement. Part 1: History, design, and overview of the cervical artificial disc. Neurosurg Q. 2008;18(2):8995.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23

    Phillips FM, Lee JYB, Geisler FH, 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 (Phila Pa 1976). 2013;38(15):E907E918.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 24

    Sekhon LH, Ball JR. Artificial cervical disc replacement: principles, types and techniques. Neurol India. 2005;53(4):445450.

  • 25

    Link HD, McAfee PC, Pimenta L. Choosing a cervical disc replacement. Spine J. 2004;4 (6)(suppl):294S302S.

  • 26

    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(5):532545.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 27

    Patwardhan AG, Tzermiadianos MN, Tsitsopoulos PP, et al. Primary and coupled motions after cervical total disc replacement using a compressible six-degree-of-freedom prosthesis. Eur Spine J. 2012;21(suppl 5):618629.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 28

    Patwardhan AG, Havey RM. Prosthesis design influences segmental contribution to total cervical motion after cervical disc arthroplasty. Eur Spine J. 2020;29(11):27132721.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 29

    Tian W, Wang H, Yan K, Han X, Jin P. Analysis of the factors that could predict segmental range of motion after cervical artificial disk replacement: a 7-year follow-up study. Clin Spine Surg. 2017;30(5):E603E608.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 595 595 506
Full Text Views 46 46 35
PDF Downloads 64 64 48
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0