Search

OBJECTIVE Cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) has been demonstrated to be an effective treatment modality for single-level cervical radiculopathy or myelopathy. Its advantages over an anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) include motion preservation and decreased reoperations at the index and adjacent segments up to 7 years postoperatively. Considering the fact that many patients have multilevel cervical disc degeneration (CDD), the authors performed a systematic review of the clinical studies evaluating patients who underwent multilevel CDA (2 or more levels). METHODS A systematic review in the MEDLINE database was performed. Clinical studies including patients who had multilevel CDA were selected and included. Case reports and literature reviews were excluded. Articles were then grouped according to their main study objective: 1) studies comparing multilevel CDA versus ACDF; 2) studies comparing single-level CDA versus multilevel CDA; and 3) multilevel CDA after a previous cervical spine surgery. RESULTS Fourteen articles met all inclusion criteria. The general conclusions were that multilevel CDA was at least as safe and effective as ACDF, with preservation of cervical motion when compared with ACDF and potentially with fewer reoperations expected in most of the studies. Multilevel CDAs are clinically effective as single-level surgeries, with good clinical and radiological outcomes. Some studies reported a higher incidence of heterotopic ossification in multilevel CDA when compared with single-level procedures, but without clinical relevance during the follow-up period. A CDA may be indicated even after a previous cervical surgery in selected cases. CONCLUSIONS The current literature supports the use of multilevel CDA. Caution is necessary regarding the more restrictive indications for CDA when compared with ACDF. Further prospective, controlled, multicenter, and randomized studies not sponsored by the device manufactures are desirable to prove the superiority of CDA surgery over ACDF as the treatment of choice for CDD in selected cases.

Early attempts at spinal arthroplasty in the 1950s yielded limited success. A revival of this procedure occurred in the 1980s and became a realistic treatment option in the 1990s. Both lumbar and cervical arthroplasties have been introduced in the US since 2000 for randomized, prospective studies in accordance with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) investigational device exemption provisions. In June 2004 the first lumbar arthroplasty device was approved by the FDA for use in the US. It is likely that cervical arthroplasty will soon follow and may be available for widespread use as early as 2006. In this paper the authors review the historical development of cervical arthroplasty.

Discectomy, decompression, and fusion are traditionally used to manage cervical disc disease accompanied by neural element compression that is refractory to conservative management. Concerns regarding stress at levels adjacent to fusion and possible adjacent-level degeneration as well as a desire to maintain a more normal biomechanical environment have led to investigation of cervical disc replacement as an alternative to fusion procedures. Cervical disc prostheses currently under investigation are constructed of predominantly metal-on-polyethylene or metal-on-metal bearing surfaces, and use roughened titanium surfaces and osteoconductive coatings to facilitate fixation. The unique anatomy and biomechanics of the cervical spine must be considered when extrapolating from the experience of appendicular arthroplasty and lumbar disc replacement.

OBJECTIVE The aim of this paper was to comprehensively review each of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved labels of 7 total cervical disc replacements, assess the exact methodology in which the trial was conducted, and provide a broad comparison of these devices to allow each surgeon to determine which disc best suits his or her specific treatment goals based on the specific labels and not the studies published. METHODS The FDA-approved labels for each of the 7 artificial discs were obtained from the official FDA website. These labels were meticulously compared with regard to the statistical analysis performed, the safety and efficacy data, and the randomized controlled trial that each artificial disc was involved in to obtain the FDA approval for the product or device. Both single-level and 2-level approvals were examined, and primary and secondary end points were assessed. RESULTS In the single-level group, 4 of the 7 artificial discs—Prestige LP, Prestige ST, Bryan, and Secure-C—showed superiority in overall success. Prestige ST showed superiority in 3 of 4 outcome measures (neurological success, revision surgery, and overall success), while the other aforementioned discs showed superiority in 2 or fewer measures (Prestige LP, neurological and overall success; Bryan, Neck Disability Index [NDI] and overall success; Secure-C, revision surgery and overall success; Pro-Disc C, revision surgery). The PCM and Mobi-C discs demonstrated noninferiority across all outcome measures. In the 2-level group, Prestige LP and Mobi-C demonstrated superiority in 3 outcome measures (NDI, secondary surgery, and overall success) but not neurological success. CONCLUSIONS This paper provides a comprehensive analysis of 7 currently approved and distributed artificial discs in the United States. It compares specific outcome measures of these devices against those following the standard of care, which is anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. This information will provide surgeons the opportunity to easily answer patients' questions and remain knowledgeable when discussing devices with manufacturers.

Cervical arthroplasty is being recognized as an emerging alternative to anterior cervical fusion with comparable or superior outcomes. The authors describe the surgical nuances of 2-level cervical arthroplasty in a case of 2-level degenerative disease. In this surgical technique, conventional vertebral body distraction has been avoided to prevent facet distraction, which can be a cause of persistent postoperative neck pain. Good motion preservation was observed at the 1-year follow-up examination.The video can be found here: https://youtu.be/YTpRVRXuZZk.

Object In this study, the authors review the technique for inserting the Prestige ST in a contiguous multilevel cervical disc arthroplasty in patients with radiculopathy and myelopathy. They describe the preoperative planning, surgical technique, and their experience with 10 patients receiving a contiguous Prestige ST implant. They present contiguous multilevel cervical arthroplasty as an alternative to multilevel arthrodesis. Methods After institutional board review approval was obtained, the authors performed a retrospective review of all contiguous multilevel cervical disc arthroplasties with the Prestige ST artificial disc between August 2007 and November 2009 at a single institution by a single surgeon. Clinical criteria included patients who had undergone a multilevel cervical disc arthroplasty performed for radiculopathy and myelopathy without the presence of a previous cervical fusion. Between August 2007 and November 2009, 119 patients underwent cervical arthroplasty. Of the 119 patients, 31 received a Hybrid construct (total disc resection [TDR]–anterior cervical decompression and fusion [ACDF] or TDR-ACDF-TDR) and 24 received a multilevel cervical arthroplasty. The multilevel cervical arthroplasty group consisted of 14 noncontiguous and 10 contiguous implants. This paper examines patients who received contiguous Prestige ST implants. Results Ten men with an average age of 45 years (range 25–61 years) were treated. Five patients presented with myelopathy, 3 presented with radiculopathy, and 2 presented with myeloradiculopathy. Twenty-two 6 × 16–mm Prestige ST TDRs were implanted. Six patients received 2-level Prestige ST implants. Five patients received TDRs at C5–6 and C6–7, and 1 patient received TDRs at C3–4 and C4–5. One patient received a TDR at C3–4, C5–6, and C6–7 where C4–5 was a congenital block vertebra. Three patients (2 with 3-level disease and 1 with 4-level disease) received contiguous Prestige ST implants as well as a Prevail ACDF as part of their constructs. The mean clinical and radiographic follow-up was 12 months. There has been no case of screw backout, implant dislodgment, progressive kyphosis, formation of heterotopic bone, evidence of pseudarthrosis at the Prevail levels, or development of symptomatic adjacent level disease. Conclusions Multilevel cervical arthroplasty with the Prestige ST is a safe and effective alternative to fusion for the management of cervical radiculopathy and myelopathy.

Enthusiasm for cervical disc arthroplasty is based on the premise that motion-preserving devices attenuate the progression of adjacent-segment disease (ASD) in the cervical spine. Arthrodesis, on the other hand, results in abnormal load transfer on adjacent segments, leading to the acceleration of ASD. It has taken several decades of pioneering work to produce clinically relevant devices that mimic the kinematics of the intervertebral disc. The goal of this work is to trace the origins of cervical arthroplasty technology and highlight the attributes of devices currently available in the market.