Spinal arthroplasty aims to preserve or reconstruct the normal biomechanical functions of the spine with motion-preserving implants. Although fusion is a proven technique to stabilize the spine, it is nonphysiologic with known limitations such as loss of mobility and risk of adjacent segment disease. This paper focuses on the main areas of spinal arthroplasty including cervical disc replacement, lumbar disc replacement, and lumbar facet arthroplasty. We review the biomechanics, history, outcomes, and future directions for each of these over the last 30 years. Although today spinal arthroplasty is only used in very specific degenerative settings, as innovation in spinal arthroplasty progresses, this will lead to wider adoption and a future where spine surgery is truly reconstructive and motion-preserving.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
A Commentary on “A Comprehensive Review of Spinal Arthroplasty” Sonja Häckel, Fabienne Pohle Neurospine.2026; 23(2): 273. CrossRef
From the Editor-in-Chief: Featured Articles in the April 2026 Issue Inbo Han Neurospine.2026; 23(2): 227. CrossRef
Objective To compare clinical and radiographic outcomes between 2 motion preservation surgeries, cervical disc replacement (CDR) and posterior endoscopic cervical decompression (PECD), for unilateral cervical radiculopathy.
Methods Between February 2018 and December 2020, 60 patients with unilateral cervical radiculopathy who underwent either CDR or PECD were retrospectively recruited as matched pairs. Clinical outcomes included visual analogue scale (VAS) scores for neck and arm pain, Neck Disability Index (NDI), and satisfaction rates. The radiographic outcome was index level motion. Intraoperative data, complications, and hospital stay were collected. Preoperative and postoperative outcomes were compared.
Results Patients undergoing CDR or PECD were included, with 30 cases in each group. Matched pairs were compared in terms of demographic data and preoperative measurements. CDR was associated with shorter operative times, whereas PECD resulted in less intraoperative blood loss. The total complication rate was 5%. NDI and VAS for neck and arm were significantly improved in both groups, with no significant differences between the 2 groups. Satisfaction rates of good and excellent exceeded 87% in both groups. CDR was superior to PECD in the restoration of disc height. Early postoperative follow-up showed no significant difference in terms of index level motion. PECD demonstrated significantly shorter hospital stays and quicker return-to-work times (p<0.05).
Conclusion PECD achieved equivalent clinical and radiologic outcomes compared with CDR when the certain criteria for surgery were met. Both techniques demonstrated the potential to maintain index level motion. Additionally, PECD resulted in less blood loss, shorter hospital stays, and faster return-to-work times. Conversely, CDR offered shorter operative times and better restoration of disc height.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
Delta large-channel endoscopy versus unilateral biportal endoscopy for cervicothoracic junction disc herniation: a prospective randomized controlled trial Huaibin Wang, Hui Li, Rushuo Wei, Hao Yan, Ruzhan Yao, Weiqiang Liu, Ling Li Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
Cervical disc arthroplasty versus minimally invasive posterior cervical procedures as motion preserving surgeries for cervical radiculopathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis Jia Yi Loh, Xian Jun Ngoh, Zhihong Chew, Yee Gen Lim, Michael Janssen, Jiang Lei European Spine Journal.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
Comparison of surgical outcomes between posterior percutaneous endoscopic cervical discectomy and microscope-assisted ACDF in patients with single-level unilateral radicular symptomatology of cervical disc herniation: a single-center retrospective study Yin He, Jing Zhang, Dawei Ren, Tianping Xi, Zhilin Li European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
Clinical Outcomes and Patient Perspectives in Full Endoscopic Cervical Surgery: A Systematic Review Wongthawat Liawrungrueang, Sung Tan Cho, Ayush Sharma, Watcharaporn Cholamjiak, Meng-Huang Wu, Lo Cho Yau, Hyun-Jin Park, Ho-Jin Lee Neurospine.2025; 22(1): 81. CrossRef
Advancing the future of endoscopic spine surgery Wongthawat Liawrungrueang Asian Spine Journal.2025; 19(2): IX. CrossRef
Objective Despite growing interest in cervical disc replacement (CDR) for conditions such as cervical radiculopathy, limited data exists describing the impact of obesity on early postoperative outcomes and complications. These data are especially important as nearly half of the adult population in the United States is expected to become obese (body mass index [BMI] ≥ 30 kg/m2) by 2030. The goal of this study was to compare the demographics, perioperative variables, and complication rates following CDR.
Methods The 2005–2020 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program datasets were queried for patients who underwent primary 1- or 2-level CDR. Patients were divided into 3 cohorts: Nonobese (BMI: 18.5–29.9 kg/m2), Obese class-I (BMI: 30–34.9 kg/m2), Obese class-II/III (BMI ≥ 35 kg/m2). Morbidity was defined as the presence of any complication within 30 days postoperatively. Rates of 30-day readmission, reoperation, morbidity, individual complications, length of stay, frequency of nonhome discharge disposition were collected.
Results A total of 5,397 patients were included for analysis: 3,130 were nonobese, 1,348 were obese class I, and 919 were obese class II/III. There were more 2-level CDRs performed in the class II/III cohort compared to the nonobese group (25.7% vs. 21.5%, respectively; p < 0.05). Class-II/III had more nonhome discharges than class I and nonobese (2.1% vs. 0.5% vs. 0.7%, respectively; p < 0.001). Readmission rates differed as well (nonobese: 0.5%, class I: 1.1%, class II/III: 2.1%; p < 0.001) with pairwise significance between class II/II and nonobese. Class II/III obesity was an independent risk factor for both readmission (odds ratio [OR], 3.32; p = 0.002) and nonhome discharge (OR, 2.51; p = 0.02). Neither 30-day reoperation nor morbidity rates demonstrated significance. No mortalities were reported.
Conclusion Although obese class-II/III were risk factors for 30-day readmission and nonhome discharge, there was no significant difference in reoperation rates or morbidity. CDR procedures can continue to be safely preformed independent of obesity status.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
The Impact of Obesity on Spine Surgery Operative Time: A Quantitative Analysis Haseeb E. Goheer, Mina Botros, Andrew R. Leggett, Gabriel Ramirez, Ram Haddas, Robert W. Molinari, Varun Puvanesarajah Global Spine Journal.2026; 16(2): 975. CrossRef
Preoperative Disability Influences Effectiveness of Minimal Clinically Important Difference and Patient Acceptable Symptom State in Predicting Patient Improvement Following Cervical Spine Surgery Pratyush Shahi, Omri Maayan, Tejas Subramanian, Nishtha Singh, Sumedha Singh, Kasra Araghi, Olivia Tuma, Tomoyuki Asada, Maximilian Korsun, Evan Sheha, James Dowdell, Sheeraz A. Qureshi, Sravisht Iyer Global Spine Journal.2025; 15(2): 884. CrossRef
Obesity is an independent risk factor for postoperative pulmonary embolism after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion Haseeb E. Goheer, Christopher G. Hendrix, Linsen T. Samuel, Alden H. Newcomb, Jonathan J. Carmouche The Spine Journal.2025; 25(2): 299. CrossRef
Cervical disc arthroplasty is safe across various obesity levels Manjot Singh, Benjamin Chanes, Mariah Balmaceno-Criss, Alan H. Daniels, Andrew S Zhang The Spine Journal.2025; 25(4): 756. CrossRef
Class 2/3 obesity leads to worse outcomes following minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion Pratyush Shahi, Tejas Subramanian, Kasra Araghi, Maximilian K. Korsun, Sumedha Singh, Nishtha Singh, Olivia C. Tuma, Tomoyuki Asada, Annika Bay, Eric R. Zhao, Adin M. Ehrlich, Sereen Halayqeh, Tarek Harhash, Andrea Pezzi, Adrian Lui, Evan D. Sheha, James The Spine Journal.2025; 25(9): 1985. CrossRef
Morbidly Obese Patients Have Similar Clinical Outcomes and Recovery Kinetics After Minimally Invasive Decompression Pratyush Shahi, Tejas Subramanian, Sumedha Singh, Kasra Araghi, Tomoyuki Asada, Maximilian Korsun, Nishtha Singh, Olivia Tuma, Chad Simon, Avani Vaishnav, Eric Mai, Joshua Zhang, Cole Kwas, Myles Allen, Eric Kim, Annika Heuer, Evan Sheha, James Dowdell, S Spine.2025; 50(5): 318. CrossRef
Risk Factors of 90-Day Unplanned Readmission After Lumbar Spine Surgery for Degenerative Lumbar Disk Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Jeong In Seol, Jeong Hoon Yoo, Hyeon Gyu Sung, Hyun Ho Park, Sung Hyeon Noh Neurosurgery.2025; 97(4): 908. CrossRef
Single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion is associated with higher nonroutine discharge rates compared to cervical disc arthroplasty in obese patients Paul G. Mastrokostas, Luke B. Schwartz, Eli Berglas, Aaron B. Lavi, Leonidas E. Mastrokostas, Jonathan Dalton, Christopher K. Kepler, Arya Varthi, Jad Bou Monsef, Afshin E. Razi, Mitchell K. Ng Journal of Craniovertebral Junction and Spine.2025; 16(2): 205. CrossRef
Thirty-day unplanned readmission rates and risk factors in spine surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis Ya-Nan Gong, Mei-Qing Lin, Bi-Zhen Chen, Chen Wu, Qiu-Ling Zheng Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Anterior cervical surgery for morbidly obese patients should be performed in-hospitals Nancy E. Epstein, Marc A. Agulnick Surgical Neurology International.2024; 15: 2. CrossRef
Practical Answers to Frequently Asked Questions in Anterior Cervical Spine Surgery for Degenerative Conditions Tejas Subramanian, Austin Kaidi, Pratyush Shahi, Tomoyuki Asada, Takashi Hirase, Avani Vaishnav, Omri Maayan, Troy B. Amen, Kasra Araghi, Chad Z. Simon, Eric Mai, Olivia C. Tuma, Ashley Yeo Eun Kim, Nishtha Singh, Maximillian K. Korsun, Joshua Zhang, Myle Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.2024; 32(18): e919. CrossRef
Predictors of Nonhome Discharge After Cervical Disc Replacement Tejas Subramanian, Junho Song, Yeo Eun Kim, Omri Maayan, Robert Kamil, Pratyush Shahi, Daniel Shinn, Sidhant Dalal, Kasra Araghi, Tomoyuki Asada, Troy B. Amen, Evan Sheha, James Dowdell, Sheeraz Qureshi, Sravisht Iyer Clinical Spine Surgery.2024; 37(7): E324. CrossRef
Beyond the Label: Extended Indications for Cervical Disc Arthroplasty Annika Bay, Eric R. Zhao, Cole T. Kwas, Chad Z. Simon, Tomoyuki Asada, Sheeraz A. Qureshi Contemporary Spine Surgery.2024; 25(12): 1. CrossRef
Objective To perform a systematic literature review on revision surgeries at the index level after cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) failure.
Methods A systematic literature review was performed according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Prospective studies on patients who required a secondary surgery after CDA failure were included for analysis. The minimum follow-up for these studies was 5 years.
Results Out of 864 studies in the original search group, a total of 20 studies were included. From a total of 4,087 patients, 161 patients required a reoperation at the index level. A total of 170 surgeries were performed, as some patients required multiple surgeries. The most common secondary procedures were anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) (68%, N = 61) and posterior cervical fusion (15.5%, N = 14), followed by other reoperation (13.3%, N = 12). The associated outcomes for those who required a revision surgery were rarely mentioned in the included literature.
Conclusion The long-term revision rate at the index level of failed CDA surgery was 3.9%, with a minimum 5-year follow-up. ACDF was the most commonly performed procedure to salvage a failed CDA. Some patients who required a new surgery after CDA failure may require a more extensive salvage procedure and even subsequent surgeries.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
Risk Factors for Reoperation Following Single-Level Cervical Disc Arthroplasty as Utilized in a Representative Sample of United States Clinical Practice: A Retrospective PearlDiver Study Paal K. Nilssen, Nakul Narendran, Ida Chen, Linda E. Kanim, Corey T. Walker, Hyun W. Bae, David L. Skaggs, Alexander Tuchman Global Spine Journal.2025; 15(2): 1186. CrossRef
A Surgical Video Guide Demonstrating the Steps to Safely Revise an Extruded Cervical Disk Arthroplasty Implant Causing Severe Spinal Cord Compression: 2-Dimensional Operative Video Bryce A. Pugh, Allie L. Harbert, Michael A. Galgano Operative Neurosurgery.2025; 29(2): 313. CrossRef
Reoperation Strategy for Failure of Cervical Disc Arthroplasty at Index and Adjacent Levels Chae-Gwan Kong, Jong-Beom Park Journal of Clinical Medicine.2025; 14(6): 2038. CrossRef
Patient outcomes and surgical strategies in revision cervical arthroplasty following M6-C™ disc-related osteolysis Matthew Scott-Young, David Nielsen, Sukhman Riar, Evelyne Rathbone European Spine Journal.2025; 34(8): 3365. CrossRef
Cervical Disk Arthroplasty Failure in a Patient with Klippel-Feil Syndrome Phillip Alexeev, Ryan Snowden JBJS Case Connector.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Cervical Disk Arthroplasty: Updated Considerations of an Evolving Technology Franziska C. S. Altorfer, Fedan Avrumova, Celeste Abjornson, Darren R. Lebl Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.2024; 32(23): e1205. CrossRef
Cervical Disc Replacement with a Keeled Implant Causing an Intraoperative Fracture: a Case Report Jonathon Garrett, Michael McDermott, Joseph Mixa, Michael Rogers, Rebecca Michna, Robert Prior, Ashish Patel Journal of the American Osteopathic Academy of Orthopedics.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Observational, Multicenter Study of the Efficacy and Safety of Cervical Disk Arthroplasty With Mobi-C in the Treatment of Cervical Degenerative Disk Disease. Results at 10 years Follow-Up Jean-Paul Steib, Thierry Dufour, Jacques Beaurain, Pierre Bernard, Jean Huppert Spine.2023; 48(7): 452. CrossRef
Clinical Effectiveness of Artificial Disc Replacement in Comparison With Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion in the Patients With Cervical Myelopathy: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Jung Hwan Lee, Youn Joo Lee, Min Cheol Chang, Jun Ho Lee Neurospine.2023; 20(3): 1047. CrossRef
Impact of Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy Before or After Cervical Disk Replacement Mason W. Young, Amir M. Abtahi Clinical Spine Surgery.2023; 36(9): 391. CrossRef
Revision Strategies for Cervical Disc Arthroplasty Steven G. Roth, Marcos Joaquin Robles Ortiz, Meghana Vulapalli, K. Daniel Riew Clinical Spine Surgery.2023; 36(9): 411. CrossRef
Comparable long-term outcomes in patients undergoing total disc replacement or anterior cervical discectomy and noninstrumented fusion Tuomas Hirvonen, Mathias Hämäläinen, Juho Konsti, Jussi Antinheimo, Jussi Numminen, Jari Siironen, Anniina Koski-Palkén, Mika Niemelä The Spine Journal.2023; 23(12): 1817. CrossRef
Enhanced Intervertebral Disc Repair via Genetically Engineered Mesenchymal Stem Cells with Tetracycline Regulatory System Yeji Kim, Seong Bae An, Sang-Hyuk Lee, Jong Joo Lee, Sung Bum Kim, Jae-Cheul Ahn, Dong-Youn Hwang, Inbo Han International Journal of Molecular Sciences.2023; 24(22): 16024. CrossRef
Safety and Feasibility of Intradiscal Administration of Matrilin-3-Primed Adipose-Derived Mesenchymal Stromal Cell Spheroids for Chronic Discogenic Low Back Pain: Phase 1 Clinical Trial Dong Hyun Lee, Kwang-Sook Park, Hae Eun Shin, Sung Bum Kim, Hyejeong Choi, Seong Bae An, Hyemin Choi, Joo Pyung Kim, Inbo Han International Journal of Molecular Sciences.2023; 24(23): 16827. CrossRef
Combining Virtual Surgical Planning and Patient-Specific 3D-Printing as a Solution to Complex Spinal Revision Surgery David A. M. Tredan, Ralph J. Mobbs, Monish Maharaj, William C. H. Parr Journal of Personalized Medicine.2022; 13(1): 19. CrossRef
Cervical Radiculopathy: Focus on Factors for Better Surgical Outcomes and Operative Techniques Kyung-Chung Kang, Tae Su Jang, Cheol Hyun Jung Asian Spine Journal.2022; 16(6): 995. CrossRef
The Effect of Subsidence on Segmental and Global Lordosis at Long-term Follow-up After Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Akiro H. Duey, Christopher Gonzalez, Eric A. Geng, Pierce J. Ferriter Jr, Ashley M. Rosenberg, Ula N. Isleem, Bashar Zaidat, Paul M. Al-Attar, Jonathan S. Markowitz, Jun S. Kim, Samuel K. Cho Neurospine.2022; 19(4): 927. CrossRef
Jung Kee Mok, Avani S. Vaishnav, Chirag Chaudhary, R. Kiran Alluri, Ryan Lee, Hikari Urakawa, Kosuke Sato, Darren A. Chen, Catherine Himo Gang, Russel Huang, Todd J. Albert, Sheeraz A. Qureshi
Neurospine 2020;17(3):588-602. Published online September 30, 2020
Objective To evaluate outcomes of cervical disc replacement (CDR) in patients with nonlordotic alignment.
Methods Patients who underwent CDR were retrospectively reviewed and divided into 3 cohorts: (1) neutral/lordotic segmental and C2–7 Cobb angle (L), (2) nonlordotic segmental Cobb angle, lordotic C2–7 Cobb angle (NL-S), and (3) nonlordotic segmental and C2–7 Cobb angle (NL-SC). Radiographic and patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) were compared.
Results One-hundred five patients were included (L: 37, NL-S: 30, NL-SC: 38). A significant gain in segmental lordosis was seen in all cohorts at < 6 months (L: -1.90° [p = 0.007]; NL-S: -5.16° [p < 0.0001]; NL-SC: -6.00° [p < 0.0001]) and ≥ 6 months (L: -2.07° [p = 0.031; NL-S: -6.04° [p < 0.0001]; NL-SC: -6.74° [p < 0.0001]), with greater lordosis generated in preoperatively nonlordotic cohorts (p < 0.0001). C2–7 lordosis improved in the preoperatively nonlordotic cohort (NL-SC: 8.04°) at follow-up of < 6 months (-4.15°, p = 0.003) and ≥ 6 months (-6.40°, p = 0.003), but not enough to create lordotic alignment (< 6 months: 3.89°; ≥ 6 months: 4.06°). All cohorts showed improvement in Neck Disability Index, visual analogue scale (VAS) neck, and VAS arm, without significant difference among groups in the amount of improvement ( ≥ 6-month PROMs follow-up = 69%).
Conclusion In patients without major kyphotic deformity, CDR has the potential to generate and maintain lordosis and improve PROMs in the short-term, and can be an effective treatment option for patients with nonlordotic alignment.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
Factors Associated With Postoperative Kyphosis and Loss of Range of Motion After Cervical Disc Replacement Abel De Varona-Cocero, Stephane Owusu-Sarpong, Juan Rodriguez-Rivera, Fares Ani, Camryn Myers, Constance Maglaras, Tina Raman, Themistocles Protopsaltis Clinical Spine Surgery.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Association of Craniocervical Sagittal Alignment With the Outcomes of Cervical Disc Replacement Yi-Wei Shen, Yi Yang, Ying Hong, Chen Ding, Xin Rong, Yang Meng, Bei-Yu Wang, Ting-Kui Wu, Hao Liu Global Spine Journal.2024; 14(3): 846. CrossRef
An in Vivo, Three-Dimensional (3D), Functional Centers of Rotation of the Healthy Cervical Spine Zizhen Zhang, Kai Cao, Yanlong Zhong, Jie Yang, Shaofeng Chen, Guoan Li, Shaobai Wang, Zongmiao Wan World Neurosurgery.2024; 184: e203. CrossRef
Cervical kinematic change after posterior full-endoscopic cervical foraminotomy for disc herniation or foraminal stenosis Seungyoon Paik, Yunhee Choi, Chun Kee Chung, Young Il Won, Sung Bae Park, Seung Heon Yang, Chang-Hyun Lee, John Min Rhee, Kyoung-Tae Kim, Chi Heon Kim, Thamer Hamdan PLOS ONE.2023; 18(2): e0281926. CrossRef
Cervical sagittal balance after consecutive three-level hybrid surgery versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: radiological results from a single-center experience Shihao Chen, Yuxiao Deng, Hao Liu, Tingkui Wu, Kangkang Huang, Junbo He, Beiyu Wang Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research.2023;[Epub] CrossRef
Overview and Prevention of Complications During Full-Endoscopic Cervical Spine Surgery Young-Rak Kim, Jun-Hoe Kim, Tae-Hwan Park, Hangeul Park, Sum Kim, Chang-Hyun Lee, Kyoung-Tae Kim, Chun Kee Chung, Chi Heon Kim Journal of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery and Technique.2023; 8(2): 153. CrossRef
Clinical Effectiveness of Artificial Disc Replacement in Comparison With Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion in the Patients With Cervical Myelopathy: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Jung Hwan Lee, Youn Joo Lee, Min Cheol Chang, Jun Ho Lee Neurospine.2023; 20(3): 1047. CrossRef
Cervical Disc Replacement for Radiculopathy Versus Myeloradiculopathy Ram K. Alluri, Avani S. Vaishnav, Ahilan Sivaganesan, Todd J. Albert, Russel C. Huang, Sheeraz A. Qureshi Clinical Spine Surgery.2022; 35(4): 170. CrossRef
Commentary on “Impact of Nonlordotic Sagittal Alignment on Short-term Outcomes of Cervical Disc Replacement” Kerui Zhang, Hao Liu, Tingkui Wu Neurospine.2021; 18(2): 413. CrossRef
First
Prev
