Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Cervical disc replacement surgery: indications, technique, and technical pearls

  • 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 replacement (CDR) is a surgical option for appropriately indicated patients, and high success rates have been reported in the literature. Complications and failures are often associated with patient indications or technical variables, and the goal of this review is to assist surgeons in understanding these factors.

Recent findings

Several investigations have been published in the last 5 years supporting the use of CDR in specific patient populations. CDR has been shown to be comparable or favorable to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion in several meta-analyses and mid-term follow-up studies.

Summary

CDR was developed as a technique to preserve motion following a decompression procedure while minimizing several of the complications associated with fusion and posterior cervical spine procedures. Though success with cervical fusion and posterior foraminotomy has been well documented in the literature, high rates of mid- and long-term complications have been clearly established. CDR has also been associated with several complications and challenges with regard to surgical technique, though improvements in implant design have lead to an increase in utilization. Several devices currently exist and vary in terms of material, design, and outcomes. This review paper discusses indications, surgical technique, and technical pearls and reviews the CDR devices currently available.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

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

  1. Edwards 2nd CC, Heller JG, Murakami H. Corpectomy versus laminoplasty for multilevel cervical myelopathy: an independent matched-cohort analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2002;27(11):1168–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bohlman HH, Anderson PA. Anterior decompression and arthrodesis of the cervical spine: long-term motor improvement. Part I—improvement in incomplete traumatic quadriparesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1992;74(5):671–82.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Seng C, Tow BP, Siddiqui MA, Srivastava A, Wang L, Yew AK, Yeo W, Khoo SH, Balakrishnan NM, Bin Abd Razak HR, Chen JL, Guo CM, Tan SB, Yue WM. Surgically treated cervical myelopathy: a functional outcome comparison study between multilevel anterior cervical decompression fusion with instrumentation and posterior laminoplasty. Spine J. 2013;13(7):723–31. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2013.02.038.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bydon M, Mathios D, Macki M, de la Garza-Ramos R, Sciubba DM, Witham TF, Wolinsky JP, Gokaslan ZL, Bydon A. Long-term patient outcomes after posterior cervical foraminotomy: an analysis of 151 cases. J Neurosurg Spine. 2014;21(5):727–31. doi:10.3171/2014.7.SPINE131110.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Radhakrishnan K, Litchy WJ, O’Fallon WM, Kurland LT. Epidemiology of cervical radiculopathy. A population-based study from Rochester, Minnesota, 1976 through 1990. Brain. 1994;117(Pt 2):325–35. doi:10.1093/brain/117.2.325.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Matsunaga S, Kabayama S, Yamamoto T, Yone K, Sakou T, et al. Strain on intervertebral discs after anterior cervical decompression and fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1999;24(7):670–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Robertson JT, Papadopoulos SM, Traynelis VC. Assessment of adjacent-segment disease in patients treated with cervical fusion or arthroplasty: a prospective 2-year study. J Neurosurg Spine. 2005;3(6):417–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. •• Zhong ZM, Zhu SY, Zhuang JS, Wu Q, Chen JT. Reoperation after cervical disc arthroplasty versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a meta-analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2016;474(5):1307–16. doi:10.1007/s11999-016-4707-5. This large met-analysis of over 3200 patients in 12 randomized control studies showed lower reoperation rates in patients undergoing CDR (6%) compared with ACDF (12%) which was statistically significant.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Reitz H, Joubert MJ. Intractable headache and cervico-brachialgia treated by complete replacement of cervical intervertebral discs with a metal prosthesis. S Afr Med J. 1964;38:881–4.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Fernström U. Arthroplasty with intercorporal endoprosthesis in herniated disc and in painful disc. Acta Chir Scand Suppl. 1966;357:154–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Delamarter RB, Zigler J. Five-year reoperation rates, cervical total disc replacement versus fusion, results of a prospective randomized clinical trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013;38(9):711–7. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182797592.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Radcliff K, Coric D, Albert T. Five-year clinical results of cervical total disc replacement compared with anterior discectomy and fusion for treatment of 2-level symptomatic degenerative disc disease: a prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter investigational device exemption clinical trial. J Neurosurg Spine. 2016;25(2):213–24. doi:10.3171/2015.12.SPINE15824.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. •• Luo J, Huang S, Gong M, Dai X, Gao M, Yu T, Zhou Z, Zou X. Comparison of artificial cervical arthroplasty versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for one-level cervical degenerative disc disease: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2015;25(Suppl 1):S115–25. doi:10.1007/s00590-014-1510-4. This meta-analysis of 13 randomized studies showed favorable outcomes in patients with single-level cervical disc degeneration treated with CDR over ACDF. Superior outcomes scores, lower pain scores, less reoperations, and greater ROM were all noted at 24 months.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Murrey D, Janssen M, Delamarter R, Goldstein J, Zigler J, Tay B, Darden B. 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. 2009;9(4):275–86. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2008.05.006.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Davis RJ, Nunley PD, Kim KD, Hisey MS, Jackson RJ, Bae HW, Hoffman GA, Gaede SE, Danielson 3rd GO, Gordon C, Stone MB. Two-level total disc replacement with Mobi-C cervical artificial disc versus anterior discectomy and fusion: a prospective, randomized, controlled multicenter clinical trial with 4-year follow-up results. J Neurosurg Spine. 2015;22(1):15–25. doi:10.3171/2014.7.SPINE13953.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Puttlitz CM, Rousseau MA, Xu Z, Hu S, Tay BK, et al. Intervertebral disc replacement maintains cervical spine kinetics. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004;29(24):2809–14. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000147739.42354.a9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. DiAngelo DJ, Foley KT, Morrow BR, Schwab JS, Song J, et al. In vitro biomechanics of cervical disc arthroplasty with the ProDisc-C total disc implant. Neurosurg Focus. 2004;17(3):E7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Zhou HH, Qu Y, Dong RP, Kang MY, Zhao JW. Does heterotopic ossification affect the outcomes of cervical total disc replacement? A meta-analysis Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015;40(6):E332–40. doi:10.1097/BRS.0000000000000776.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Verma K, Gandhi SD, Maltenfort M, Albert TJ, Hilibrand AS, Vaccaro AR, Radcliff KE. Rate of adjacent segment disease in cervical disc arthroplasty versus single-level fusion: meta-analysis of prospective studies. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013;38(26):2253–7. doi:10.1097/BRS.0000000000000052.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Lee JC, Lee SH, Peters C, Riew KD. Risk-factor analysis of adjacent-segment pathology requiring surgery following anterior, posterior, fusion, and nonfusion cervical spine operations: survivorship analysis of 1358 patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014;96(21):1761–7. doi:10.2106/JBJS.M.01482.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Wu JC, Huang WC, Tsai HW, Ko CC, Fay LY, Tu TH, Wu CL, Cheng H. Differences between 1- and 2-level cervical arthroplasty: more heterotopic ossification in 2-level disc replacement: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine. 2012;16(6):594–600. doi:10.3171/2012.2.SPINE111066.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Yi S, Kim KN, Yang MS, Yang JW, Kim H, Ha Y, Yoon DH, Shin HC. Difference in occurrence of heterotopic ossification according to prosthesis type in the cervical artificial disc replacement. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010;35(16):1556–61. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181c6526b.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Yi S, Shin DA, Kim KN, Choi G, Shin HC, Kim KS, Yoon DH. The predisposing factors for the heterotopic ossification after cervical artificial disc replacement. Spine J. 2013;13(9):1048–54. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2013.02.036.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Nunley PD, Jawahar A, Kerr 3rd EJ, Gordon CJ, Cavanaugh DA, Birdsong EM, Stocks M, Danielson G. Factors affecting the incidence of symptomatic adjacent-level disease in cervical spine after total disc arthroplasty: 2- to 4-year follow-up of 3 prospective randomized trials. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012;37(6):445–51. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e31822174b3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Buchowski J, Riew K: Primary indications and disc space preparation for cervical disc arthroplasty. In: Yue J, editors. Motion preservation surgery of the spine: advanced techniques and controversies. Saunders/Elsevier; 2008.

  26. Ding D, Shaffrey ME. Cervical disk arthroplasty: patient selection. Clin Neurosurg. 2012;59:91–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Goffin J. Complications of cervical disc arthroplasty. Semin Spine Surg. 2006;18:87–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Beaurin J, Bernard P, Dufour T, Fuentes J, Hovorka I, Huppert J, Steib J, Vital J. Mobi-C. In: Yue J, editor. Motion preservation surgery of the spine: advanced techniques and controversies. Philadelphia: Saunders/Elsevier; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Stieber J, Fischgrund J, Abitbol J. The cervicore cervical intervertebral disc replacement. In: Yue J, editor. Motion preservation surgery of the spine: advanced techniques and controversies. Philadelphia: Saunders/Elsevier; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Fassett D, Jeyamohan S, Vaccaro A, Whang P. Mobi-C. In: Yue J, editor. Motion preservation surgery of the spine: advanced techniques and controversies. Philadelphia: Saunders/Elsevier; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Skeppholm M, Olerud C. Comparison of dysphagia between cervical artificial disc replacement and fusion: data from a randomized controlled study with two years of follow-up. Spine (Phiila Pa 1976). 2013;38(24):E1507–10. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182a516ef.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Loret JE, Francois P, Papagiannaki C, Cottier JP, Terrier LM, Zemmoura I. Internal carotid artery dissection after anterior cervical disc replacement: first case report and literature review of vascular complications of the approach. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2013;23(Suppl 1):S107–10. doi:10.1007/s00590-013-1228-8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Viezens L, Schaefer C, Beyerlein J, Thietje R, Hansen-Algenstaedt N. An incomplete paraplegia following the dislocation of an artificial cervical total disc replacement. J Neurosurg Spine. 2013;18(3):255–9. doi:10.3171/2013.1.SPINE12691.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Heary RF, Goldstein IM, Getto KM, Agarwal N. Solid radiographic fusion with a nonconstrained device 5 years after cervical arthroplasty. J Neurosurg Spine. 2014;21(6):951–5. doi:10.3171/2014.8.SPINE14101.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Mehren C, Suchomel P, Grochulla F, Barsa P, Sourkova P, Hradil J, Korge A, Mayer HM. Heterotopic ossification in total cervical artificial disc replacement. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006;31(24):2802–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Chen J, Wang X, Bai W, Shen X, Yuan W. Prevalence of heterotopic ossification after cervical total disc arthroplasty: a meta-analysis. Eur Spine J. 2012;21(4):674–80. doi:10.1007/s00586-011-2094-x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Nunley PD, Jawahar A, Cavanaugh DA, Gordon CR, Kerr 3rd EJ, Utter PA. Symptomatic adjacent segment disease after cervical total disc replacement: re-examining the clinical and radiological evidence with established criteria. Spine J. 2013;13(1):5–12. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2012.11.032.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Orndorff D, Poelstra K, Albert T. Discover artificial cervical disc. In: Yue J, editor. Motion preservation surgery of the spine: advanced techniques and controversies. Philadelphia: Saunders/Elsevier; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Coric D, Oberer D. Cervical approaches. In: Yue J, editor. Motion preservation surgery of the spine: advanced techniques and controversies. Philadelphia: Saunders/Elsevier; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Pearson A, Albert T: Cervical and cervicothoracic instrumentation. In: Patel V, editors. Spine surgery basics. Springer; 2014.

  41. Grochulla F: Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. In: Vieweg U, Grochulla F, editors. Manual of spine surgery. Springer; 2012.

  42. Sasso R, Martin L. The Bryan artificial disc. In: Yue J, editor. Motion preservation surgery of the spine: advanced techniques and controversies. Philadelphia: Saunders/Elsevier; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Zhao Y, Zhang Y, Sun Y, Pan S, Zhou F, Liu Z. Application of cervical arthroplasty with Bryan cervical disc: 10-year follow-up results in China. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016;41(2):111–5. doi:10.1097/BRS.0000000000001145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 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). 2016;41(12):E733–41. doi:10.1097/BRS.0000000000001367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Skeppholm M, Lindgren L, Henriques T, Vavruch L, Löfgren H, Olerud C. The Discover artificial disc replacement versus fusion in cervical radiculopathy—a randomized controlled outcome trial with 2-year follow-up. Spine J. 2015;15(6):1284–94. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2015.02.039.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Hisey MS, Zigler JE, Jackson R, Nunley PD, Bae HW, Kim KD, Ohnmeiss DD. Prospective, randomized comparison of one-level Mobi-C cervical total disc replacement vs. anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: results at 5-year follow-up. Int J Spine Surg. 2016;10:10. doi:10.14444/3010.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Traynelis V. The prestige cervical disc. In: Yue J, editor. Motion preservation surgery of the spine: advanced techniques and controversies. Philadelphia: Saunders/Elsevier; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Gornet MF, Burkus JK, Shaffrey ME, Nian H, Harrell Jr FE. Cervical disc arthroplasty with prestige LP disc versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: seven-year outcomes. Int J Spine Surg. 2016;10:24. doi:10.14444/3024.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Delamarter R, Pradhan B. ProDisc-C total cervical disc replacement. In: Yue J, editor. Motion preservation surgery of the spine: advanced techniques and controversies. Philadelphia: Saunders/Elsevier; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Zigler JE, Delamarter R, Murrey D, Spivak J, Janssen M. ProDisc-C and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion as surgical treatment for single-level cervical symptomatic degenerative disc disease: five-year results of a Food and Drug Administration study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013;38(3):203–9. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e318278eb38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Colle KO, Butler JB, Reyes PM, Newcomb AG, Theodore N, Crawford NR. Biomechanical evaluation of a metal-on-metal cervical intervertebral disc prosthesis. Spine J. 2013;13(11):1640–9. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2013.06.026.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Rushton S, Marzluff J, McConnel J. SECURE-C cervical artificial disc. In: Yue J, editors. Motion preservation surgery of the spine: advanced techniques and controversies. Philadelphia: Saunders/Elsevier; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  53. 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: two-year results from a prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter investigational device exemption study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013;38(26):2227–39. doi:10.1097/BRS.0000000000000031.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Reyes-Sanchez A, Patwardhan A, Block J. The M6 artificial cervical disc. In: Yue J, editor. Motion preservation surgery of the spine: advanced techniques and controversies. Philadelphia: Saunders/Elsevier; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Reyes-Sanchez A, Miramontes V, Olivarez LM, Aquirre AA, Quiroz AO, Zarate-Kalfopulos B. Initial clinical experience with a next-generation artificial disc for the treatment of symptomatic degenerative cervical radiculopathy. SAS J. 2010;4(1):9–15. doi:10.1016/j.esas.2010.01.002.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Hu Y, Lv G, Ren S, Johansen D. Mid- to long-term outcomes of cervical disc arthroplasty versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for treatment of symptomatic cervical disc disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of eight prospective randomized controlled trials. PLoS One. 2016;11(2):e0149312.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Benzel E, Lieberman I, Ross ER, Linovitz RJ, Kuras J, Zimmers K. Mechanical characterization of a viscoelastic disc for lumbar total disc replacement. J of Med Devices. 2011;5:1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. •• Rischke B, Ross R, Jollenbeck B, Zimmers K, Defibaugh N. Preclinical and clinical experience with a viscoelastic total disc replacement. SciVerse ScienceDirect Journal. 2011;5:97–107. This is a combined preclinical and clinical study assessing a novel viscoelastic disc arthroplasty with encouraging results.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Rischke B, Zimmers K, Smith E. Viscoelastic disc arthroplasty provides superior back and leg pain relief in patients with lumbar disc degeneration compared to anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Int J Spine Surgery. 9(26):1–8.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Nassau University Medical Center, East Meadow, NY, USA

    Dante Leven

  2. 5500 Merrick Ave, Massapequa, NY, 11758, USA

    Dante Leven

  3. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, 5 E 98th St, New York, NY, 10029, USA

    Joshua Meaike & Sheeraz Qureshi

  4. Rothman Institute, 925 Chestnut St, Philapdelphis, PA, 19107, USA

    Kris Radcliff

Authors
  1. Dante Leven
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Joshua Meaike
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kris Radcliff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sheeraz Qureshi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dante Leven.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Kris Radcliff reports personal fees from Globus Medical, personal fees from Depuy, personal fees from Stryker, personal fees from MEdtronic, personal fees from Orthopedic Sciences, Inc., personal fees from Nuvasive, personal fees from 4 Web MEdical, other from LDR Medical (now Zimmer), outside the submitted work, and shareholder status Rothman Institute.

All the other authors declare 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

Leven, D., Meaike, J., Radcliff, K. et al. Cervical disc replacement surgery: indications, technique, and technical pearls. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 10, 160–169 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12178-017-9398-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12178-017-9398-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation