Skip to main content
Log in

Does design matter? Cervical disc replacements under review

  • Review
  • Published:
Neurosurgical Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The present article reviews the design rationale of currently available cervical disc replacements. Recent prospective randomized control trials comparing cervical disc replacement and anterior fusion have demonstrated safety as well as equal or superior clinical results. Increasingly, more devices are becoming available on the market. Understanding design rationale will provide context for the surgeon to optimize decision making for the most appropriate prosthesis. Cervical arthroplasty is a technique that is undergoing rapid design refinement and development. Further improvements in device design will enable patient-specific device selection. Understanding the design rationale and complication profile of each device will improve clinical and radiographic 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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Agrillo U, Faccioli F, Fachinetti P, Gambardella G, Guizzardi G, Profeta G (1999) Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of the degenerative diseases of cervical spine. J Neurosurg Sci 43:11–14

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Alvin MD, Abbott EE, Lubelski D, Kuhns B, Nowacki AS, Steinmetz MP, Benzel EC, Mroz TE (2014) Cervical arthroplasty: a critical review of the literature. Spine J 14:2231–2245. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2014.03.047

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Anderson PA, Sasso RC, Riew KD (2008) Comparison of adverse events between the Bryan artificial cervical disc and anterior cervical arthrodesis. Spine 33:1305–1312. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e31817329a1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Coric D, Nunley PD, Guyer RD, Musante D, Carmody CN, Gordon CR, Lauryssen C, Ohnmeiss DD, Boltes MO (2011) 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 15:348–358. doi:10.3171/2011.5.SPINE10769

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Datta JC, Janssen ME, Beckham R, Ponce C (2007) Sagittal split fractures in multilevel cervical arthroplasty using a keeled prosthesis. J Spinal Disord Tech 20:89–92. doi:10.1097/01.bsd.0000211258.90378.10

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Davis RJ, Kim KD, Hisey MS, Hoffman GA, Bae HW, Gaede SE, Rashbaum RF, Nunley PD, Peterson DL, Stokes JK (2013) 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 19:532–545. doi:10.3171/2013.6.SPINE12527

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Du J, Li M, Liu H, Meng H, He Q, Luo Z (2011) Early follow-up outcomes after treatment of degenerative disc disease with the discover cervical disc prosthesis. Spine J 11:281–289. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2011.01.037

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Duggal N, Rabin D, Chamberlain RH, Baek S, Crawford NR (2007) Traumatic loading of the Bryan cervical disc prosthesis: an in vitro study. Neurosurgery 60:388–392. doi:10.1227/01.NEU.0000255374.34475.D0, discussion 392-383

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Gornet MF, Burkus JK, Shaffrey ME, Argires PJ, Nian H, Harrell FE Jr (2015) Cervical disc arthroplasty with PRESTIGE LP disc versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a prospective, multicenter investigational device exemption study. J Neurosurg Spine 31:1–16. doi:10.3171/2015.1.SPINE14589

    Google Scholar 

  10. Head WC, Bauk DJ, Emerson RH, Jr. (1995) Titanium as the material of choice for cementless femoral components in total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 311:85–90

  11. Heller JG, Sasso RC, Papadopoulos SM, Anderson PA, Fessler RG, Hacker RJ, Coric D, Cauthen JC, Riew DK (2009) Comparison of BRYAN cervical disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical decompression and fusion: clinical and radiographic results of a randomized, controlled, clinical trial. Spine 34:101–107. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e31818ee263

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Hilibrand AS, Carlson GD, Palumbo MA, Jones PK, Bohlman HH (1999) Radiculopathy and myelopathy at segments adjacent to the site of a previous anterior cervical arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 81:519–528

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Hisey MS, Bae HW, Davis R, Gaede S, Hoffman G, Kim K, Nunley PD, Peterson D, Rashbaum R, Stokes J (2014) Multi-center, prospective, randomized, controlled investigational device exemption clinical trial comparing Mobi-C Cervical Artificial Disc to anterior discectomy and fusion in the treatment of symptomatic degenerative disc disease in the cervical spine. Int J Spine Surg 8. doi:10.14444/1007

  14. Hou Y, Liu Y, Yuan W, Wang X, Chen H, Yang L, Zhang Y (2014) Cervical kinematics and radiological changes after Discover artificial disc replacement versus fusion. Spine J 14:867–877. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2013.07.432

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Kepler CK, Brodt ED, Dettori JR, Albert TJ (2012) Cervical artificial disc replacement versus fusion in the cervical spine: a systematic review comparing multilevel versus single-level surgery. Evid-Based Spine-Care J 3:19–30. doi:10.1055/s-0031-1298605

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Kim SW, Shin JH, Arbatin JJ, Park MS, Chung YK, McAfee PC (2008) Effects of a cervical disc prosthesis on maintaining sagittal alignment of the functional spinal unit and overall sagittal balance of the cervical spine. Eur Spine J 17:20–29. doi:10.1007/s00586-007-0459-y

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kurtz SM, Gawel HA, Patel JD (2011) History and systematic review of wear and osteolysis outcomes for first-generation highly crosslinked polyethylene. Clin Orthop Relat Res 469:2262–2277. doi:10.1007/s11999-011-1872-4

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Lauryssen C, Coric D, Dimmig T, Musante D, Ohnmeiss DD, Stubbs HA (2012) Cervical total disc replacement using a novel compressible prosthesis: results from a prospective Food and Drug Administration-regulated feasibility study with 24-month follow-up. Int J Spine Surg 6:71–77. doi:10.1016/j.ijsp.2012.02.001

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Lazaro BC, Yucesoy K, Yuksel KZ, Kowalczyk I, Rabin D, Fink M, Duggal N (2010) Effect of arthroplasty design on cervical spine kinematics: analysis of the Bryan Disc, ProDisc-C, and Synergy disc. Neurosurg Focus 28:E6. doi:10.3171/2010.3.FOCUS1058

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Li GL, Hu JZ, Lu HB, Qu J, Guo LY, Zai FL (2015) Anterior cervical discectomy with arthroplasty versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for cervical spondylosis. J Clin Neurosci 22:460–467. doi:10.1016/j.jocn.2014.09.010

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Matz PG, Pritchard PR, Hadley MN (2007) Anterior cervical approach for the treatment of cervical myelopathy. Neurosurgery 60:S64–70. doi:10.1227/01.NEU.0000215399.67006.05

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. McAfee PC, Reah C, Gilder K, Eisermann L, Cunningham B (2012) A meta-analysis of comparative outcomes following cervical arthroplasty or anterior cervical fusion: results from 4 prospective multicenter randomized clinical trials and up to 1226 patients. Spine 37:943–952. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e31823da169

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Mehren C, Suchomel P, Grochulla F, Barsa P, Sourkova P, Hradil J, Korge A, Mayer HM (2006) Heterotopic ossification in total cervical artificial disc replacement. Spine 31:2802–2806. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000245852.70594.d5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Mummaneni PV, Burkus JK, Haid RW, Traynelis VC, Zdeblick TA (2007) Clinical and radiographic analysis of cervical disc arthroplasty compared with allograft fusion: a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Neurosurg Spine 6:198–209. doi:10.3171/spi.2007.6.3.198

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Mummaneni PV, Robinson JC, Haid RW Jr (2007) Cervical arthroplasty with the PRESTIGE LP cervical disc. Neurosurgery 60:310–314. doi:10.1227/01.NEU.0000255376.42099.13, discussion 314-315

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Murrey D, Janssen M, Delamarter R, Goldstein J, Zigler J, Tay B, Darden B (2009) 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 9:275–286. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2008.05.006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Pham MH, Mehta VA, Tuchman A, Hsieh PC (2015) Material science in cervical total disc replacement. BioMed Res Int 2015:719123. doi:10.1155/2015/719123

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Phillips FM, Garfin SR (2005) Cervical disc replacement. Spine 30:S27–33

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Phillips FM, Lee JY, Geisler FH, Cappuccino A, Chaput CD, DeVine JG, Reah C, Gilder KM, Howell KM, McAfee PC (2013) 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 38:E907–918. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e318296232f

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Pickett GE, Mitsis DK, Sekhon LH, Sears WR, Duggal N (2004) Effects of a cervical disc prosthesis on segmental and cervical spine alignment. Neurosurg Focus 17:E5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Pickett GE, Rouleau JP, Duggal N (2005) Kinematic analysis of the cervical spine following implantation of an artificial cervical disc. Spine 30:1949–1954

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Pickett GE, Sekhon LH, Sears WR, Duggal N (2006) Complications with cervical arthroplasty. J Neurosurg Spine 4:98–105. doi:10.3171/spi.2006.4.2.98

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Rabin D, Bertagnoli R, Wharton N, Pickett GE, Duggal N (2009) Sagittal balance influences range of motion: an in vivo study with the ProDisc-C. Spine J 9:128–133. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2008.01.009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Ren C, Song Y, Xue Y, Yang X (2014) Mid- to long-term outcomes after cervical disc arthroplasty compared with anterior discectomy and fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Eur Spine J 23:1115–1123. doi:10.1007/s00586-014-3220-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Rozankovic M, Marasanov SM, Vukic M (2014) Cervical disc replacement with discover versus fusion in a single level cervical disc disease: a prospective single center randomized trial with a minimum two-year follow-up. J Spinal Disord Tech. doi:10.1097/BSD.0000000000000170

    Google Scholar 

  36. Sears WR, Duggal N, Sekhon LH, Williamson OD (2007) Segmental malalignment with the Bryan cervical disc prosthesis—contributing factors. J Spinal Disord Tech 20:111–117. doi:10.1097/01.bsd.0000211264.20873.78

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Sears WR, McCombe PF, Sasso RC (2006) Kinematics of cervical and lumbar total disc replacement. Semin Spine Surg 18:117–129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Sears WR, Sekhon LH, Duggal N, Williamson OD (2007) Segmental malalignment with the Bryan Cervical Disc prosthesis—does it occur? J Spinal Disord Tech 20:1–6. doi:10.1097/01.bsd.0000211262.13250.f8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Sekhon LH, Duggal N, Lynch JJ, Haid RW, Heller JG, Riew KD, Seex K, Anderson PA (2007) Magnetic resonance imaging clarity of the Bryan, Prodisc-C, Prestige LP, and PCM cervical arthroplasty devices. Spine 32:673–680. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000257547.17822.14

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Sekhon LH, Sears W, Duggal N (2005) Cervical arthroplasty after previous surgery: results of treating 24 discs in 15 patients. J Neurosurg Spine 3:335–341. doi:10.3171/spi.2005.3.5.0335

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Thomas S, Willems K, Van den Daelen L, Linden P, Ciocci MC, Bocher P (2013) The M6-C Cervical Disc Prosthesis: first clinical experience in 33 patients. J Spinal Disord Tech. doi:10.1097/BSD.0000000000000025

    Google Scholar 

  42. Vaccaro A, Beutler W, Peppelman W, Marzluff JM, Highsmith J, Mugglin A, DeMuth G, Gudipally M, Baker KJ (2013) Clinical outcomes with selectively constrained SECURE-C cervical disc arthroplasty: two-year results from a prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter investigational device exemption study. Spine 38:2227–2239. doi:10.1097/BRS.0000000000000031

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Veruva SY, Steinbeck MJ, Toth J, Alexander DD, Kurtz SM (2014) Which design and biomaterial factors affect clinical wear performance of total disc replacements? A systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res 472:3759–3769. doi:10.1007/s11999-014-3751-2

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Yi S, Shin HC, Kim KN, Park HK, Jang IT, Yoon DH (2007) Modified techniques to prevent sagittal imbalance after cervical arthroplasty. Spine 32:1986–1991. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e318133fb99

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Zechmeister I, Winkler R, Mad P (2011) Artificial total disc replacement versus fusion for the cervical spine: a systematic review. Eur Spine J 20:177–184. doi:10.1007/s00586-010-1583-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Neil Duggal.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Staudt, M.D., Das, K. & Duggal, N. Does design matter? Cervical disc replacements under review. Neurosurg Rev 41, 399–407 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10143-016-0765-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10143-016-0765-0

Keywords

Navigation