Segmental range of motion after cervical total disc arthroplasty at long-term follow-up: a systematic review and meta-analysis

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

As an alternative procedure to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, total disc arthroplasty (TDA) facilitates direct neural decompression and disc height restoration while also preserving cervical spine kinematics. To date, few studies have reported long-term functional outcomes after TDA. This paper reports the results of a systematic review and meta-analysis that investigated how segmental range of motion (ROM) at the operative level is maintained with long-term follow-up.

METHODS

PubMed and MEDLINE were queried for all published studies pertaining to cervical TDA. The methodology for screening adhered strictly to the PRISMA guidelines. All English-language prospective studies that reported ROM preoperatively, 1 year postoperatively, and/or at long-term follow-up of 5 years or more were included. A meta-analysis was performed using Cochran’s Q and I2 to test data for statistical heterogeneity, in which case a random-effects model was used. The mean differences (MDs) and associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were reported.

RESULTS

Of the 12 studies that met the inclusion criteria, 8 reported the long-term outcomes of 944 patients with an average (range) follow-up of 99.86 (60–142) months and were included in the meta-analysis. There was no difference between preoperative segmental ROM and segmental ROM at 1-year follow-up (MD 0.91°, 95% CI −1.25° to 3.07°, p = 0.410). After the exclusion of 1 study from the comparison between preoperative and 1-year ROM owing to significant statistical heterogeneity according to the sensitivity analysis, ROM significantly improved at 1 year postoperatively (MD 1.92°, 95% CI 1.04°–2.79°, p < 0.001). However, at longer-term follow-up, the authors again found no difference with preoperative segmental ROM, and no study was excluded on the basis of the results of further sensitivity analysis (MD −0.22°, 95% CI −1.69° to −1.23°, p = 0.760). In contrast, there was a significant decrease in ROM from 1 year postoperatively to final long-term follow-up (MD −0.77°, 95% CI −1.29° to −0.24°, p = 0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

Segmental ROM was found to initially improve beyond preoperative values for as long as 1 year postoperatively, but then ROM deteriorated back to values consistent with preoperative motion at long-term follow-up. Although additional studies with further longitudinal follow-up are needed, these findings further support the notion that cervical TDA may successfully maintain physiological spinal kinematics over the long term.

ABBREVIATIONS

ACDF = anterior cervical discectomy and fusion; ASD = adjacent-segment degeneration; CI = confidence interval; FDA = US Food and Drug Administration; HO = heterotopic ossification; IDE = Investigational Device Exemption; MD = mean difference; NDI = Neck Disability Index; RCT = randomized controlled trial; ROM = range of motion; SD = standard deviation; 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

    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):168181.

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

    Cunningham BW, Hu N, Zorn CM, McAfee PC. Biomechanical comparison of single- and two-level cervical arthroplasty versus arthrodesis: effect on adjacent-level spinal kinematics. Spine J. 2010;10(4):341349.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7

    Finn MA, Brodke DS, Daubs M, Patel A, Bachus KN. Local and global subaxial cervical spine biomechanics after single-level fusion or cervical arthroplasty. Eur Spine J. 2009;18(10):15201527.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8

    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):198209.

    • 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;11:31.

    • 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

    Nesterenko SO, Riley LH III, Skolasky RL. Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion versus cervical disc arthroplasty: current state and trends in treatment for cervical disc pathology. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012;37(17):14701474.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14

    Mehren C, Suchomel P, Grochulla F, et al. Heterotopic ossification in total cervical artificial disc replacement. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006;31(24):28022806.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15

    Kim KS, Heo DH. Do Postoperative biomechanical changes induce heterotopic ossification after cervical arthroplasty? A 5-year follow-up study. Clin Spine Surg. 2016;29(6):E309E313.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16

    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):22232226.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17

    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
  • 18

    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. 2021;22(3):353369.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19

    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):384389.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20

    Coric D, Guyer RD, Nunley PD, et al. 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. 2018;28(3):252261.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21

    Janssen ME, Zigler JE, Spivak JM, Delamarter RB, Darden BV 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
  • 22

    Vaccaro A, Beutler W, Peppelman W, et al. Long-term clinical experience with selectively constrained SECURE-C cervical artificial disc for 1-level cervical disc disease: results from seven-year follow-up of a prospective, randomized, controlled investigational device exemption clinical trial. Int J Spine Surg. 2018;12(3):377387.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23

    Burkus JK, Traynelis VC, Haid RW Jr, Mummaneni 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. 2014;21(4):516528.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 24

    Song Q, He D, Han X, Zhang N, Wang J, Tian W. Clinical and radiological outcomes of cervical disc arthroplasty: ten year follow-up study. Int Orthop. 2018;42(10):23892396.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 25

    Dejaegher J, Walraevens J, van Loon J, Van Calenbergh F, Demaerel P, Goffin J. 10-year follow-up after implantation of the Bryan Cervical Disc Prosthesis. Eur Spine J. 2017;26(4):11911198.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 26

    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):11271134.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 27

    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):26702674.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 28

    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
  • 29

    Matsunaga S, Kabayama S, Yamamoto T, Yone K, Sakou T, Nakanishi K. Strain on intervertebral discs after anterior cervical decompression and fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1999;24(7):670675.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 30

    Wang QL, Tu ZM, Hu P, et al. Long-term results comparing cervical disc arthroplasty to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Orthop Surg. 2020;12(1):1630.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 31

    Latka D, Kozlowska K, Miekisiak G, 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;15:531-539.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 32

    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):14931502.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 33

    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
  • 34

    Cho HJ, Shin MH, Huh JW, Ryu KS, Park CK. Heterotopic ossification following cervical total disc replacement: iatrogenic or constitutional?. Korean J Spine. 2012;9(3):209214.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 35

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

  • 36

    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
  • 37

    Yi S, Shin DA, Kim KN, et al. The predisposing factors for the heterotopic ossification after cervical artificial disc replacement. Spine J. 2013;13(9):10481054.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 38

    Yi S, Kim KN, Yang MS, et al. Difference in occurrence of heterotopic ossification according to prosthesis type in the cervical artificial disc replacement. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010;35(16):15561561.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 39

    Park CK, Ryu KS. Are controversial issues in cervical total disc replacement resolved or unresolved? A review of literature and recent updates. Asian Spine J. 2018;12(1):178192.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 40

    Dufour T, Beaurain J, Huppert J, Dam-Hieu P, Bernard P, Steib JP. Clinical and radiological evaluation of cervical disc arthroplasty with 5-year follow-up: a prospective study of 384 patients. Eur Spine J. 2019;28(10):23712379.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 41

    Dong L, Zhengwei X, Xiujin C, et al. The change of adjacent segment after cervical disc arthroplasty compared with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Spine J. 2017;17(10):15491558.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 152 152 139
Full Text Views 53 53 35
PDF Downloads 64 64 50
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0