Skip to main content
Log in

Cervical disc replacement surgery: biomechanical properties, postoperative motion, and postoperative activity levels

  • Motion Preserving Spine Surgery (C Kepler, section editor)
  • Published:
Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of review

Cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) is an evolving technique used in the treatment of cervical disc disease. To remain up to date on studies regarding its efficacy, we sought to answer three questions: What do biomechanical studies demonstrate in regard to the kinematics of CDA? How does CDA affect cervical motion? What are the postoperative activity levels of patients after cervical disc arthroplasty?

Recent findings

  1. 1)

    In regard to biomechanics, recent data suggests that CDA maintains motion while possibly altering facet biomechanics.

  2. 2)

    Radiographic data indicates a reliable maintenance of motion in the short and medium term.

  3. 3)

    Postoperative activity levels are assessed with clinical outcome data which demonstrate reliable improvement in pain and function.

Summary

The data reviewed here establishes CDA as an efficacious treatment in the relief of symptoms from CDD. It is important to note however that an evaluation of CDA would benefit from more robust data, specifically in regards to long-term clinical outcomes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance

  1. Colle KO, Butler JB, Reyes PM, Newcomb AGUS, Theodore N, Crawford NR. Biomechanical evaluation of a metal-on-metal cervical intervertebral disc prosthesis. Spine J. 2013;13:1640–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Jaumard NV, Bauman JA, Guarino BB, Gokhale AJ, Lipschutz DE, Weisshaar CL, Welch WC, Winkelstein BA. ProDisc cervical arthroplasty does not alter facet joint contact pressure during lateral bending or axial torsion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013;38:E84–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Park J, Shin JJ, Lim J. Biomechanical analysis of disc pressure and facet contact force after simulated two-level cervical surgeries (fusion and arthroplasty) and hybrid surgery. World Neurosurg. 2014;82:1388–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 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;10:341–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Zhao Y, Zhang Y, Sun Y, Pan S, Zhou F, Liu Z. Application of cervical arthroplasty with Bryan cervical disc. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016;41:111–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Ryu WHA, Kowalczyk I, Duggal N. Long-term kinematic analysis of cervical spine after single-level implantation of Bryan cervical disc prosthesis. Spine J. 2013;13:628–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Sasso RC, Anderson PA, Riew KD, Heller JG. Results of cervical arthroplasty compared with anterior discectomy and fusion: four-year clinical outcomes in a prospective, randomized controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011;93(18):1684–92. doi:10.2106/JBJS.J.00476.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Zhang X, Zhang X, Chen C, Zhang Y, Wang Z, Wang B, Yan W, Li M, Yuan W, Wang Y. Randomized, controlled, multicenter, clinical trial comparing BRYAN cervical disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical decompression and fusion in China. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012;37:433–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Auerbach JD. Segmental contribution toward total cervical range of motion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011;36:1593–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Trial C. Adjacent segment motion after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011;36:1171–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. • Anderson PA, Sasso RC, Hipp J, Norvell DC, Raich A, Hashimoto R. Kinematics of the cervical adjacent segments after disc arthroplasty compared with anterior discectomy and fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012;37:S85–95. This is one of the more robust studies comparing radiographic outcomes and evaluates CDA technology as a whole.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Gao F, Mao T, Sun W, Guo W, Wang Y, Li Z, Abhinav P. An updated meta-analysis comparing artificial cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for the treatment of cervical degenerative disc disease (CDDD). Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015;40:1816–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. • Boselie T, Willems P, Henk van Mameren H, de Bie R, Benzel E, van Santbrink H. Arthroplasty versus fusion in single-level cervical. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013;38:E1096–107. This is a well designed cochrane review assessing differences in clinical outcomes between ACDF and CDA.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. • McAfee PC, Reah C, Gilder K, Eisermann L, Cunningham B. A meta-analysis of comparative outcomes following cervical arthroplasty or anterior cervical fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012;37:943–52. This is a meta-analysis evaluating the clinical performance of several of the more prominent CDA devices.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Schluessmann E, Aghayev E, Staub L, Moulin P, Zweig T, Röder C. SWISS spine: the case of a governmentally required HTA-registry for total disc arthroplasty: results of cervical disc prostheses. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010;35:E1397–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Sasso WR, Smucker JD, Sasso MP, Sasso RC (2016) Long-term clinical outcomes of cervical disc arthroplasty: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976)

  17. Zhu Y, Tian Z, Zhu B, Zhang W, Li Y, Zhu Q. Bryan cervical disc arthroplasty versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for treatment of cervical disc diseases: a meta-analysis of prospective randomized controlled trials. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015;41:733–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Radcliff K, Zigler J, Zigler J. Costs of cervical disc replacement versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for treatment of single-level cervical disc disease. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015;40:521–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 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;40:674–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Vaccaro A, Beutler W, Peppelman W, Marzluff JM, Highsmith J, Mugglin A, DeMuth G, Gudipally M, Baker KJ. Clinical outcomes with selectively constrained SECURE-C cervical disc arthroplasty. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013;38:2227–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Cody JP, Kang DG, Tracey RW, Wagner SC, Rosner MK, Lehman RA. Outcomes following cervical disc arthroplasty: a retrospective review. J Clin Neurosci. 2014;21:1901–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Tracey RW, Kang DG, Cody JP, Wagner SC, Rosner MK, Lehman RA. Outcomes of single-level cervical disc arthroplasty versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. J Clin Neurosci. 2014;21:1905–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Melvin Helgeson.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Both authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and animal rights and informed consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Motion Preserving Spine Surgery

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pisano, A., Helgeson, M. Cervical disc replacement surgery: biomechanical properties, postoperative motion, and postoperative activity levels. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 10, 177–181 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12178-017-9400-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12178-017-9400-0

Keywords

Navigation