Subscribe to RSS
Results of Total Cervical Disc Replacement with a Minimum Follow-up of 10 Years[*]Article in several languages: português | English
29 June 2018
22 January 2019
19 December 2019 (online)
Objective In the present study, we present the results with at least 10 years of follow-up of the cervical disc prosthesis implanted in a single level.
Methods Retrospective study of patients undergoing single-level total cervical disc replacement (TCDR). Clinical results included the neck disability index (NDI) and the visual analogue scale (VAS) in the preoperative period, one year postoperatively, and a minimum of 10 years of follow-up. The radiographic parameters included cervical mobility, segmental lordosis, C2-C7 angle, heterotopic ossification (HO), facet and joint degeneration (FJD) and adjacent segment disease (ASD).
Results We identified 22 patients, 16 women and 6 men with mean age of 39.7 years old (26–51 years old), of which fifteen completed a minimum follow-up of 10 years. There was a statistically significant improvement of NDI and VAS (p < 0.001) between the preoperative and the postoperative periods (1 year or > 10 years). At the end of 10 years, HO was observed in 59% of the cases. The mobility of the implant was preserved in 80% of the patients. Radiological evidence of ASD was recorded in 6 patients (40%). There was no correlation between the clinical parameters evaluated and the presence of ASD or the different classes of HO.
Conclusion Clinical improvement in all evaluated parameters, which persists over time. Most implants maintained mobility, as has already been demonstrated in other studies with shorter follow-ups. In a significant percentage of cases, ASD was observed, questioning the concept of motion preserving technology. However, we did not have any surgical intervention for this reason, since there was no correlation with worse clinical results.
* Study conducted at the Department of Orthopedics, Hospital São João, Porto, Portugal.
- 1 Murrey D, Janssen M, Delamarter R. , et al. 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 (04) 275-286
- 2 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 2013; 38 (03) 203-209
- 3 Hisey MS, Bae HW, Davis R. , et al. Multicenter, prospective, randomized, controlled investigational device exemption study comparing mobi-C cervical artificial disc to anterior fusion in the treatment of symptomatic cervical degenerative disc disease. Int J Spine Surg 2014
- 4 Hisey MS, Bae HW, Davis RJ. , et al. Prospective, randomized comparison of cervical total disk replacement versus anterior cervical fusion: Results at 48 Months Follow-up. J Spinal Disord Tech 2015; 28 (04) E237-E243
- 5 McAfee PC, Cunningham BW, Devine J, Williams E, Yu-Yahiro J. Classification of heterotopic ossification (HO) in artificial disk replacement. J Spinal Disord Tech 2003; 16 (04) 384-389
- 6 Côté P, Cassidy JD, Yong-Hing K, Sibley J, Loewy J. Apophysial joint degeneration, disc degeneration, and sagittal curve of the cervical spine. Can they be measured reliably on radiographs?. Spine 1997; 22 (08) 859-864
- 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) 1684-1692
- 8 Burkus JK, Haid RW, Traynelis VC, Mummaneni PV. 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 2010; 13 (03) 308-318
- 9 Heller JG, Sasso RC, Papadopoulos SM. , et al. Comparison of BRYAN cervical disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical decompression and fusion: clinical and radiographic results of a randomized, controlled, clinical trial. Spine 2009; 34 (02) 101-107
- 10 Du J, Li M, Liu H, Meng H, He Q, Luo Z. Early follow-up outcomes after treatment of degenerative disc disease with the discover cervical disc prosthesis. Spine J 2011; 11 (04) 281-289
- 11 Korinth MC. Treatment of cervical degenerative disc disease - current status and trends. Zentralbl Neurochir 2008; 69 (03) 113-124
- 12 Helgeson MD, Bevevino AJ, Hilibrand AS. Update on the evidence for adjacent segment degeneration and disease. Spine J 2013; 13 (03) 342-351
- 13 Hilibrand AS, Robbins M. Adjacent segment degeneration and adjacent segment disease: the consequences of spinal fusion?. Spine J 2004; 4 (6, Suppl) 190S-194S
- 14 Ishihara H, Kanamori M, Kawaguchi Y, Nakamura H, Kimura T. Adjacent segment disease after anterior cervical interbody fusion. Spine J 2004; 4 (06) 624-628
- 15 Murrey DB, Janssen ME, Odum SM, Gottlieb JR, Spector LR, Darden BV. Two-year results of a randomized controlled clinical trial comparing ProDisc-C and Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion. SAS J 2008; 2 (02) 76-85
- 16 Yang H, Lu X, Yuan W, Wang X, Chen D, Zhao D. Artificial disk replacement in the treatment of degenerative cervical disk disorder: a 30-year follow-up study. Spine 2014; 39 (19) 1564-1571
- 17 Yi S, Shin DA, Kim KN. , et al. The predisposing factors for the heterotopic ossification after cervical artificial disc replacement. Spine J 2013; 13 (09) 1048-1054
- 18 Leung C, Casey AT, Goffin J. , et al. Clinical significance of heterotopic ossification in cervical disc replacement: a prospective multicenter clinical trial. Neurosurgery 2005; 57 (04) 759-763 , discussion 759–763