Total disc replacement in the cervical spine: a systematic review evaluating long-term safety

ABSTRACT

Study design: Systematic review.

Clinical questions: What are the rates and causes of subsequent surgeries? What is the long-term complication rates following cervical artificial disc replacement (C-ADR)? How do these rates change over time?

Methods: A systematic review was undertaken for articles published up to October 2011. Electronic databases and reference lists of key articles were searched to identify comparative and non-comparative studies reporting long-term (≥ 48 months) complications of C-ADR. Two independent reviewers assessed the strength of evidence using the GRADE criteria and disagreements were resolved by consensus.

Results: Two RCTs reporting outcomes following C-ADR (Bryan disc, Prestige disc) versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) at follow-ups of 4 to 5 years were found; five case series reporting outcomes following C-ADR at follow-ups of 4 to 8 years were identified. Secondary surgery rates were similar or slightly lower following C-ADR compared with fusion at 4 to 5 years postoperatively. In one small subset of an RCT, rates of adjacent disc heterotopic ossification were lower in C-ADR patients than in those treated with fusion. Rates of other adverse events were similar between treatment groups.

Conclusions: There is low evidence on the long-term safety outcomes following C-ADR. Additional comparative studies with follow-up of at least 4 years are needed to fully understand the long-term safety outcomes of C-ADR compared with fusion.

• REFERENCES

• 1 Burkus JK, Haid RW, Traynelis VC et al. 2010; Long-term clinical and radiographic outcomes of cervical disc replacement with the Prestige disc: results from a prospective randomized controlled clinical trial. J Neurosurg Spine 13 (3) 308-318
• 2 Sasso RC, Anderson PA, Riew KD et al. 2011; 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 93 (18) 1684-1692
• 3 Garrido BJ, Wilhite J, Nakano M et al. 2011; Adjacent-level cervical ossification after Bryan cervical disc arthroplasty compared with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. J Bone Joint Surg Am 93 (13) 1185-1189
• 4 Goffin J, van Loon J, van Calenbergh F et al. 2010; A clinical analysis of 4- and 6-year follow-up results after cervical disc replacement surgery using the Bryan Cervical Disc Prosthesis. J Neurosurg Spine 12 (3) 261-269
• 5 Quan GM, Vital JM, Hansen S et al. 2011; Eight-year clinical and radiological follow-up of the Bryan cervical disc arthroplasty. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 36 (8) 639-646
• 6 Robertson JT, Metcalf NH. 2004; Long-term outcome after implantation of the Prestige I disc in an end-stage indication: 4-year results from a pilot study. Neurosurg Focus 17 (3) E10
• 7 Suchomel P, Jurak L, Benes 3rd V et al. 2010; Clinical results and development of heterotopic ossification in total cervical disc replacement during a 4-year follow-up. Eur Spine J 19 (2) 307-315
• 8 Walraevens J, Demaerel P, Suetens P et al. 2010; Longitudinal prospective long-term radiographic follow-up after treatment of single-level cervical disk disease with the Bryan Cervical Disc. Neurosurgery 67 (3) 679-687
• 9 Zhao YB, Sun Y, Chen ZQ et al. 2010; Application of cervical arthroplasty with Bryan cervical disc: long-term X-ray and magnetic resonance imaging follow-up results. Chin Med J (Engl) 123 (21) 2999-3002
• 10 Cavanaugh DA, Nunley PD, Kerr 3rd EJ et al. 2009; Delayed hyper-reactivity to metal ions after cervical disc arthroplasty: a case report and literature review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34 (7) E262-265
• 11 Guyer RD, Shellock J, MacLennan B et al. 2011; Early failure of metal-on-metal artificial disc prostheses associated with lymphocytic reaction: diagnosis and treatment experience in four cases. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 36 (7) E492-497