This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA), or total disc replacement, has emerged as an option in the past two decades for the management of 1- and 2-level cervical disc herniation and spondylosis causing radiculopathy, myelopathy, or both. Multiple prospective randomized controlled trials have demonstrated CDA to be as safe and effective as anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, which has been the standard of care for decades. Moreover, CDA successfully preserved segmental mobility in the majority of surgical levels for 5–10 years. Although CDA has been suggested to have long-term efficacy for the reduction of adjacent segment disease in some studies, more data are needed on this topic. Surgery for CDA is more demanding for decompression, because indirect decompression by placement of a tall bone graft is not possible in CDA. The artificial discs should be properly sized, centered, and installed to allow movement of the vertebrae, and are commonly 6 mm high or less in most patients. The key to successful CDA surgery includes strict patient selection, generous decompression of the neural elements, accurate sizing of the device, and appropriately centered implant placement.
Cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA), or total disc replacement, has been widely accepted as an alternative treatment for cervical disc degenerative disease in the past decade because of its preservation of segmental mobility and the potential to reduce adjacent segment disease (ASD) [1-4]. There were several U. S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) prospective randomized control trials comparing CDA and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) with 5–8 years follow-up data published [4-16]. The results of these trials indicate that CDA has a similar success rate in relief of neurologic symptoms with ACDF [5,11,13,17]. These results also demonstrate effective preservation of segmental mobility in CDA. The average range of flexion/extension of each treated level is 7–9 degrees [7,9,10,12]. Studies suggest CDA has a lower incidence of ASD with a reported rate of 0.8% to 2.9% [2,18].
CERVICAL ARTIFICIAL DISC
There are many artificial discs provided by different manufacturers which use different designs and materials. An artificial disc is composed of three major parts: upper end plate, articulation core, and lower endplate.
1. Endplate of Artificial Disc
Most artificial discs use 1 of 3 endplate shape designs: spherical, ovate, and rectangular. The endplate design influences the endplate coverage and the extent of bony preparation. There are now more manufacturers using a convex upper endplate design. This design could fit to the physiological shape of the upper endplate of vertebrae. The materials used for endplates, include Titanium alloy, Cobalt-chromium and stainless steel. Currently, there is no definite conclusion or clinical evidence of the superiority of these 3 materials. However, stainless steel has more artifact in magnetic resonance images than the other 2 materials that make follow-up difficult. The designs for primary stabilization included teeth, keel, fin, spike, and screw with/without endplate coating (porous titanium or hydroxyapatite). Care should be taken to follow the manufacturer’s instructions to install the device for adequate osteo-integration.
2. Articulation Core
Most artificial discs use a ball-and-socket articulation design with different materials, including ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylene (metal-on-polymer), stainless steel (metal-on-metal) and ceramic (ceramic-on-ceramic). To date, there has been no report of revision surgery due to device wear-out. Long-term follow-up is still needed, especially focusing on the durability of the articulation core and the reactive response to wear debris. Fixed or mobile core was another design difference of the articulation in these devices. Artificial discs with a mobile core would have an additional degree of freedom, the anterior-posterior translation, which provided significantly more movement between the 2 vertebrae. Owing to the mobile core, the artificial disc could add a movable center of rotation (COR) which should effectively lower the mechanical load over adjacent discs. In the contrast, the artificial discs with a fixed core would only allow a fixed COR that required special address during installation, because they must be installed precisely to replicate the anatomical COR, in order to restore normal kinematics, and mimic physiological motion [19,20].
INDICATION AND CONTRAINDICATION
The FDA trials enrolled adult patients who had 1- or 2-level cervical disc disease between C3 to C7, causing refractory radiculopathy, myelopathy or both [4]. CDA might not be recommended in elderly patients (aged over 60) because they have a higher chance of having pre-existing facet arthropathy that limits the range of motion.
Relative contraindications for CDA are kyphotic deformity, facet arthropathy, instability (i.e., more than 2- to 3-mm translation/subluxation on dynamic lateral radiographs), ankyloses, ossification of posterior longitudinal ligament, and osteoporosis [4-8,10-12,14,17].
CLINICAL CONSIDERATIONS
The design rationale for CDA is to replace the diseased disc which is causing radiculopathy while preserving segmental motion at the index level. For cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM), some surgeons advocate fusion to limit motion to enhance recovery. It is not clear whether there are differences in patients’ neurological recovery or outcome with myelopathy versus radiculopathy when treated with CDA. The FDA trials also enrolled patients with myelopathy and demonstrated similar improvements of myelopathy in both ACDF and CDA patients. There is some evidence showing that CDA is also effective in the management of 1- or 2-level CSM [21-23]. Although the present data seem promising, the true effect of CDA in the management of cervical myelopathy requires further investigation.
PREOPERATIVE EVALUATION
Evaluation by both magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed tomography (CT) is helpful before CDA surgery. MRI is useful in evaluation of spinal canal stenosis as well as foraminal stenosis. Preoperative CT scans are helpful in the detection of ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament (OPLL), calcified disc, osteophytes, and facet arthropathy. In patients with OPLL or calcified disc, anterior discectomy could be associated with a higher risk of durotomy. In most published literature, OPLL is listed as a relative contraindication for CDA. Furthermore, a preoperative CT scan is particularly useful for detection of facet arthropathy. If the facet joint is severely degenerated or fused, there is little chance to preserve motion after CDA surgery.
Both cervical anteriorposterior and lateral radiographs, including dynamic views, are helpful in the evaluation of cervical alignment and segmental mobility. Patients with pre-existing cervical kyphosis, anteriorposterior translation or subluxation are not good candidates for CDA surgery, because it is not likely for CDA to correct cervical alignment [24]. On the other hand, instrumented ACDF is well accepted for the correction of cervical kyphosis by using lordotic interbody bone grafts.
The most common level of CDA surgery is C5–6, followed by C4–5 and C6–7. Compared to other subaxial levels, C3–4 CDA was reported to have a higher incidence of heterotopic ossification (HO) with uncertain cause [25]. There were also a few case reports of C7–T1 CDA which is technically feasible but rarely indicated. To date, there have been no reports of CDA at C2–3.
For patients who had any kind of prior neck surgery (i.e., ACDF or thyroid surgery), preoperative endoscopic surveillance of vocal cord movement should be considered. If bilateral vocal cord movement is normal, approach from the virgin side is suggested to avoid risk of esophagus injury. If there is pre-existing unilateral vocal cord palsy, CDA should be performed via the same side to prevent bilateral vocal cord palsy which may require tracheostomy to protect the airway.
SURGICAL TECHNIQUE
General anesthesia with either an oral or a nasal endotracheal tube and prophylactic antibiotics are recommended for all patients undergoing CDA. The nasal endotracheal tube is considered when C3–4 CDA surgery is planned since it may allow easier retraction of the trachea. Intraoperative neuro-monitoring and perioperative steroids are options that may be considered.
Positioning is the first step for successful CDA. The patient should be placed in a supine position, without head rotation in neutral or slightly lordotic alignment. Adequate cushioning underneath the neck is helpful to achieve appropriate alignment. In obese patients, chin or shoulder traction would be helpful for better visualization of the target level. After positioning, a lateral fluoroscopy image is necessary to assure visualization of the target level and location of the skin incision. An anteriorposterior fluoroscopy view is sometimes useful to confirm the patient’s neck is in an orthogonal position.
The surgical approach for CDA is similar to the standard ACDF approach. A transverse skin incision along a pre-existing skin crease is adequate for exposure of up to 2 disc levels. Sharp dissection of soft tissue between the carotid sheath and the strap muscle leads to an avascular plane. By blunt dissection through the avascular plane, the trachea and esophagus are pushed medially to expose the prevertebral retro-pharyngeal space. The bilateral longus coli muscles are dissected and detached slightly along the medial border. Self-retaining retractor blades can be inserted beneath the longus coli muscles for protection of the esophagus medially and the carotid sheath laterally. After setup of the retractor, the endotracheal cuff may be deflated and partially reflated immediately to prevent barotrauma to the trachea and recurrent laryngeal nerves. Caution should be taken during dissection to avoid injury to the superior and recurrent laryngeal nerves, which may lead to postoperative hoarseness and dysphagia.
After confirmation of the target level by intraoperative fluoroscopy, precise midline determination of the vertebral body should be done by either recognizing anatomic features or by using anteriorposterior fluoroscopy. The authors prefer the use of distraction pins placed into the midline of vertebral bodies to facilitate discectomy with gentle retraction. For CDA, resection of the posterior longitudinal ligament is recommended for thorough decompression of the dura [26]. Moreover, the authors suggest resection of the bilateral uncovertebral joints to ensure decompression of the bilateral neural foramen [26]. Since CDA aims at preservation of segmental motion, it is a necessity to ensure decompression of both neural foramen in order to prevent nerve impingement during neck motion. Unlike conventional ACDF, which partially relies on indirect decompression by distraction of the disc space, CDA depends solely on direct decompression. Thus, generous decompression of the dura and bilateral neural foramen is crucial to avoid recurrent radicular symptoms during extreme motion after CDA.
To achieve the best outcome of CDA surgery, each artificial disc should be installed properly, including sizing, centering, and positioning. Thus, midline acquisition and proper endplate preparation is important. The endplate preparation helps primary stability of the artificial disc. Care must be taken that the endplate should not be violated too much during decompression, otherwise the risk of implant migration or subsidence increases. There are many types of artificial discs on the market and each one has specialized fixation mechanisms, such as keel, fin, teeth, or screws. There is no definite report that demonstrates superiority of one device over another. Surgeons should follow the manufacturer’s specific instructions and select the proper height and the largest footprint that is closest to the physiologically functioning disc. Most artificial discs are 5–6 mm high and surgeons should note that overly high CDA may inhibit segmental motion by splaying the facet joints.
1. Case Illustration
A 43-year-old male presented with neck pain and left-sided radiculopathy that was refractory to medical management for more than 3 months. The symptoms were aggravated during neck extension. There were also mild symptoms of cervical myelopathy, which were referable to a disc herniation at C5–6 demonstrated by MRI. The preoperative CT scan also confirmed the stenosis with marginal osteophyte at C5–6 and ruled out ossification of posterior longitudinal ligament (Fig. 1). The preoperative lateral flexion and extension radiographs demonstrated a normal range of motion (Fig. 2).
The patient then underwent 1-level CDA with ProDisc-C Vivo (DePuy Synthes Spine, Inc., Raynham, MA, USA). The surgery went smoothly, and his symptoms were completely relieved after surgery. The postoperative radiographs taken at 6 months demonstrated good mobility (Figs. 3, 4). There were no complications and reoperations.
PUBLISHED CLINICAL STUDIES
Since the beginning of this century, there have been several prospective, randomized, and controlled clinical trials of the FDA, comparing CDA to the standard ACDF surgery. These published clinical trials have demonstrated the safety and effectiveness of CDA in 1- and 2-level cervical disc herniation and spondylosis, as good as instrumented ACDF (Table 1). Moreover, these artificial discs for CDA from various manufacturers unanimously demonstrated preservation of the segmental mobility at the indexed levels for many years [4,12]. The averaged range of motion in these clinical trials were approximately 7 to 10 degrees. To date, the published trials were on patients who had CDA surgery for up to 2 consecutive levels from C3 to C7 and followed for up to 10 years. Furthermore, some studies suggested lower incidences of ASD in patients who underwent CDA than patients who underwent ACDF. Along with the growth of promising results published, the use of CDA has gained popularity in the past decade. There is a good chance that more applications and designs of CDA would continue to push forward the field of surgical management in cervical spondylosis.
There also have been a retrospective series of studies that addressed issues that the FDA trials could not specify (Table 2). For example, patients with soft disc herniation or less degeneration would have less HO than those patients with spondylosis or calcified discs after CDA [3]. Patients with multilevel disc herniations had higher chances of development of HO after CDA than that with single-level disease, though the clinical outcomes were all very similar [27,28]. Furthermore, choosing the exact size of an artificial disc and precise placement of the device, including accurate centering and alignment, were the fundamentals of successful CDA surgery [29]. Surgical techniques for CDA are far more demanding than ACDF, since the surgery aims to restore the physiological range of motion while maintaining stability. It is also not uncommon to see that some patients could yield an increased range of motion at the level of index, though the global lordosis of the cervical spine was rarely altered after CDA [24]. These studies (Table 2) also demonstrated some extended indications of CDA, including congenital cervical stenosis and traumatic disc herniations that did not cause ligamentous injury or bony destruction [30,31].
POSTOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT, CLINICAL OUTCOMES, AND COMPLICATIONS
1. Heterotopic Ossification
The postoperative management of CDA is very similar to that of ACDF except that a neck collar is not necessary in CDA patients. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are often prescribed to most CDA patients to reduce the chance of HO [32]. The incidence of HO varies from series to series and depends on the method of detection. HO refers to undesired ectopic bone formation around the artificial disc that might jeopardize function of the artificial disc. HO has been considered as a complication or an adverse event of CDA surgery in most published series. There was a higher incidence of HO formation after CDA in patients with spondylosis compared to those patients with soft disc herniation [3]. It seems that HO is a consequence of continuously on-going degeneration, like the marginal spur, that develops as a normal physiological reaction to stabilize the arthritic spine. Common ways to lower the incidence of HO include copious irrigation to remove bone dust when implanting a CDA and waxing the exposed surface of cancellous bone, as well as giving nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medication postoperatively for 2 weeks [3,29,32,33].
2. Surgical Outcome
Currently, most available data for CDA surgery comes from FDA-Investigational Device Exemption trials which enrolled adult patients with 1- and 2-level cervical herniated discs, degenerative disc disease, and spondylosis with a follow-up to 8 years. The FDA trials demonstrated that CDA has similar outcomes with ACDF in relief of neurologic symptoms and is associated with less reoperation and adverse events. However, it is unclear that patients with unilateral radiculopathy have similar results as those with spondylotic myelopathy. The FDA trials did not provide stratified data and subgroup analysis on this issue.
The advantage of motion preservation in CDA surgery becomes more obvious in the management of multilevel patients. The results of the CDA trials demonstrated motion preservation at 7 to 9 degree for each level during flexion and extension. For patients who underwent one level ACDF, a loss of 7 to 9 degree range of motion might be unnoticeable. However, 2- or 3-level ACDF often limits neck mobility and brings inconvenience in daily activity. There were a few reported series of CDA surgery for multilevel (more than 2) degenerative disease causing radiculopathy, myelopathy or both [3,21-23,25,28,34,35]. The results seem satisfactory, but more long-term follow-up is still needed, including studies of hybrid constructs combining fusion and arthroplasty.
The future application of CDA might include patients with more than 2-level degenerative disc disease and combined use of ACDF or corpectomy with CDA as a hybrid construct. Currently, manufacturers provide artificial discs with a variety size of different heights and footprints. However, one size cannot fit all patients. Using an improper small size of artificial disc comes with inadequate endplate coverage and an overly high CDA may splay the facets to inhibit motion. In the foreseeable future, custom made artificial discs with 3-dimensional printing could precisely help fit the CDA into each individual patient.
CONCLUSION
In selected patients, CDA spares the need for arthrodesis after anterior discectomy and yields excellent clinical outcomes compared with ACDF. The best currently available data support use of CDA in 1- and 2-level cervical disc disease causing radiculopathy or myelopathy that is refractory to medical management. Further study may expand the application of CDA for cervical stenosis caused by different pathologies or multiple diseases. As the techniques, materials and designs of these CDA devices continue to improve, the utilization of CDA is likely to be more prevalent in the future.
Fig. 1.
Preoperative magnetic resonance images (sagittal and axial view over C5–6, A and B), computed tomography (axial view over C5–6 and sagittal, C and D).
Fig. 2.
Preoperative lateral dynamic radiographs: flexion (A) and extension (B).
Fig. 3.
Immediate postoperative radiographs: anteriorposterior (A) and lateral (B).
FDA-IDE, U. S. Food and Drug Administration-Investigational Device Exemption; ROM, range of motion; HO, heterotrophic ossification; ACDF, anterior cervical discectomy and fusion; CDA, cervical disc arthroplasty; N/A, not available.
Segmental mobility and overall cervical alignment had no influences on the clinical outcomes after CDA. However, patients with increased segmental mobility had less HO formation
HO, heterotrophic ossification; CDA, cervical disc arthroplasty; ACDF, anterior cervical discectomy and fusion; NSAID, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; OPLL, ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament; IISI, increased intramedullary signal intensity.
REFERENCES
1. Wu JC, Hsieh PC, Mummaneni PV, et al. Spinal motion preservation surgery. Biomed Res Int 2015;2015:372502.
2. Wu JC, Liu L, Wen-Cheng H, et al. The incidence of adjacent segment disease requiring surgery after anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion: estimation using an 11-year comprehensive nationwide database in Taiwan. Neurosurgery 2012;70:594-601.
3. Wu JC, Huang WC, Tu TH, et al. Differences between softdisc herniation and spondylosis in cervical arthroplasty: CT-documented heterotopic ossification with minimum 2 years of follow-up. J Neurosurg Spine 2012;16:163-71.
4. Mummaneni PV, Amin BY, Wu JC, et al. Cervical artificial disc replacement versus fusion in the cervical spine: a systematic review comparing long-term follow-up results from two FDA trials. Evid Based Spine Care J 2012;3(S1):59-66.
6. Gornet MF, Lanman TH, Burkus JK, et al. Cervical disc arthroplasty with the Prestige LP disc versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, at 2 levels: results of a prospective, multicenter randomized controlled clinical trial at 24 months. J Neurosurg Spine 2017;26:653-67.
7. 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 (Phila Pa 1976) 2009;34:101-7.
10. 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;9:275-86.
11. 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;25:213-24.
12. Upadhyaya CD, Wu JC, Trost G, et al. Analysis of the three United States Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption cervical arthroplasty trials. J Neurosurg Spine 2012;16:216-28.
14. Davis RJ, Kim KD, Hisey MS, et al. 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 2013;19:532-45.
15. Burkus JK, Haid RW, Traynelis VC, et al. 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;13:308-18.
16. Quan GM, Vital JM, Hansen S, et al. Eight-year clinical and radiological follow-up of the Bryan cervical disc arthroplasty. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2011;36:639-46.
17. Coric D, Kim PK, Clemente JD, et al. Prospective randomized study of cervical arthroplasty and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with long-term follow-up: results in 74 patients from a single site. J Neurosurg Spine 2013;18:36-42.
18. Hilibrand AS, Carlson GD, Palumbo MA, et al. Radiculopathy and myelopathy at segments adjacent to the site of a previous anterior cervical arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1999;81:519-28.
20. Lou J, Li Y, Wang B, et al. In vitro biomechanical comparison after fixed- and mobile-core artificial cervical disc replacement versus fusion. Medicine (Baltimore) 2017;96:e8291.
22. Chang HK, Huang WC, Wu JC, et al. Should cervical disc arthroplasty be done on patients with increased intramedullary signal intensity on magnetic resonance imaging? World Neurosurg 2016;89:489-96.
23. Chang HC, Tu TH, Chang HK, et al. Hybrid corpectomy and disc arthroplasty for cervical spondylotic myelopathy caused by ossification of posterior longitudinal ligament and disc herniation. World Neurosurg 2016;95:22-30.
25. Chang PY, Chang HK, Wu JC, et al. Differences between C3-4 and other subaxial levels of cervical disc arthroplasty: more heterotopic ossification at the 5-year follow-up. J Neurosurg Spine 2016;24:752-9.
26. Tu TH, Chang CC, Wu JC, et al. Resection of uncovertebral joints and posterior longitudinal ligament for cervical disc arthroplasty. Neurosurg Focus 2017;42(VideoSuppl1):V2.
28. Wu JC, Huang WC, Tsai TY, et al. Multilevel arthroplasty for cervical spondylosis: more heterotopic ossification at 3 years of follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2012;37:E1251-9.
29. Tu TH, Wu JC, Huang WC, et al. The effects of carpentry on heterotopic ossification and mobility in cervical arthroplasty: determination by computed tomography with a minimum 2-year follow-up: Clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 2012;16:601-9.
30. Chang HK, Huang WC, Wu JC, et al. Cervical arthroplasty for traumatic disc herniation: an age- and sex-matched comparison with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2015;16:228.
32. Tu TH, Wu JC, Huang WC, et al. Postoperative nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs and the prevention of heterotopic ossification after cervical arthroplasty: analysis using CT and a minimum 2-year follow-up. J Neurosurg Spine 2015;22:447-53.
33. Tu TH, Wu JC, Huang WC, et al. Heterotopic ossification after cervical total disc replacement: determination by CT and effects on clinical outcomes. J Neurosurg Spine 2011;14:457-65.
34. Fay LY, Huang WC, Wu JC, et al. Arthroplasty for cervical spondylotic myelopathy: similar results to patients with only radiculopathy at 3 years’ follow-up. J Neurosurg Spine 2014;21:400-10.
37. Coric D, Guyer RD, Nunley PD, et al. Prospective, randomized multicenter study of cervical arthroplasty versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: 5-year results with a metal-on-metal artificial disc. J Neurosurg Spine 2018;28:252-61.
38. Loumeau TP, Darden BV, Kesman TJ, et al. A RCT comparing 7-year clinical outcomes of one level symptomatic cervical disc disease (SCDD) following ProDisc-C total disc arthroplasty (TDA) versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). Eur Spine J 2016;25:2263-70.
The Total Disc Replacement Osteolysis Grading Scale – a simple, reliable and quantifiable tool for assessing, managing and reporting osteolysis after cervical total disc replacement Alana Celenza, Jessica Gaff, Moreica Pabbruwe, Juan Amaya, Ashik Amlani, Andrew Berg, Sonja Häckel, Michael Kern, Andrew Miles, Paul Taylor, Gregory Cunningham European Spine Journal.2026; 35(4): 1706. CrossRef
A review of combined anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with cervical disc replacement for multilevel cervical disc disease Jeffrey Weinreb, Claire van Ekdom, Diarra Oden, Joseph O’Brien Current Orthopaedic Practice.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
History of Trauma Preceding Cervical Disc Replacement Leads to Worse Postoperative Patient Reported Outcomes: A Matched Cohort Analysis Sereen Halayqeh, Chad Z. Simon, Annika Bay, Eric Mai, Cole T. Kwas, Tomoyuki Asada, Andrea Pezzi, Adrian T. H. Lui, Atahan Durbas, Olivia C. Tuma, Nicholas J. Giattino, Anthony R. Lewis, James E. Dowdell, Kyle W. Morse, James Farmer, Russel C. Huang, Todd Global Spine Journal.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
Comparison of Hybrid Surgery and Two-Level ACDF in Treating Consecutive Cervical Degenerative Disc Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Yihan Yang, Weishi Liang, Duan Sun, Bo Han, Zhangfu Li, Yeqiu Xu, Peng Yin, Xianjun Qu, Yong Hai Global Spine Journal.2025; 15(8): 3953. CrossRef
Menor síndrome adyacente superior y menor tasa de reoperación. Resultados a mediano y largo plazo de la artroplastia cervical frente a la artrodesis cervical anterior: revisión sistemática y metaanálisis de ensayos clínicos aleatorizados J.H. Núñez, B. Escudero, J.D. Montenegro, M.J. Jiménez-Jiménez, J. Martínez-Peña, M. Surroca, D. Bosch-García Revista Española de Cirugía Ortopédica y Traumatología.2024; 68(2): 168. CrossRef
[Translated article] Less superior adjacent syndrome and lower reoperation rate. Medium- and long-term results of cervical arthroplasty versus anterior cervical arthrodesis: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials J.H. Núñez, B. Escudero, J.D. Montenegro, M.J. Jiménez-Jiménez, J. Martínez-Peña, M. Surroca, D. Bosch-García Revista Española de Cirugía Ortopédica y Traumatología.2024; 68(2): T168. CrossRef
Revolutionizing Relief: Cervical Radiculopathy With Neurological Deficits Rescued by Cervical Disc Replacement Rahul Singh, Sohael Khan, Ratnakar E Ambade, Kashyap Kanani, Vipul Agrawal, Siddharth K Patel Cureus.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Clinical management of bone loss in cervical total disc arthroplasty: literature review and treatment recommendations Hannah Spece, Armen Khachatryan, Frank M. Phillips, Todd H. Lanman, Gunnar B. J. Andersson, Grant E. Garrigues, Hyun Bae, Joshua J. Jacobs, Steven M. Kurtz European Spine Journal.2024; 33(8): 2969. CrossRef
The Efficacy of Second-Generation Cervical Spine Arthroplasty: A 5-Year Perspective David Bosch-García, Rodrigo Luna Gutiérrez, Berta Escudero Cisneros, Carlos García Cardona, Juan Diego Montenegro, Jorge H. Núñez Journal of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery and Technique.2024; 9(Suppl 2): S117. CrossRef
A Decreasing National Trend in Lumbar Disc Arthroplasty Emily S. Mills, Tara Shelby, Gabriel J. Bouz, Raymond J. Hah, Jeffrey C. Wang, Ram K. Alluri Global Spine Journal.2023; 13(8): 2271. CrossRef
Incidence and Risk Factor of Implant Dislocation After Cervical Disk Arthroplasty: A Retrospective Cohort Analysis of 756 Patients Chin-Chu Ko, Bo-Kai Feng, Yi-Hsuan Kuo, Chao-Hung Kuo, Tsung-Hsi Tu, Chih-Chang Chang, Henrich Cheng, Wen-Cheng Huang, Jau-Ching Wu Neurosurgery.2023; 93(2): 330. CrossRef
Multilevel Cervical Disk Arthroplasty Aditya Muralidharan, Davin Gong, Joshua D. Piche, Neil Al-Saidi, Hwee Weng Dennis Hey, Ilyas Aleem Clinical Spine Surgery.2023; 36(9): 363. CrossRef
Range of motion after 1, 2, and 3 level cervical disc arthroplasty Todd H. Lanman, Jason M. Cuellar, Nicole Mottole, Michael Wernke, Elizabeth Carruthers, Antonio Valdevit North American Spine Society Journal (NASSJ).2023; 16: 100294. CrossRef
Cervical and Lumbar Disc Arthroplasty: A Review of Current Implant Design and Outcomes Ian J. Wellington, Cameron Kia, Ergin Coskun, Barrett B. Torre, Christopher L. Antonacci, Michael R. Mancini, John P. Connors, Sean M. Esmende, Heeren S. Makanji Bioengineering.2022; 9(5): 227. CrossRef
Outcomes of cervical disc replacement in patients with neck pain greater than arm pain Pratyush Shahi, Avani S. Vaishnav, Ryan Lee, Eric Mai, Michael E. Steinhaus, Russel Huang, Todd Albert, Sravisht Iyer, Evan D. Sheha, James E. Dowdell, Sheeraz A. Qureshi The Spine Journal.2022; 22(9): 1481. CrossRef
Outcomes of cervical arthroplasty versus anterior cervical arthrodesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials with a minimum follow-up of 7-year Jorge H. Núñez, Berta Escudero, Irene Omiste, Judith Martínez-Peñas, Maria Surroca, Francisco Alonzo-González, David Bosch-García European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology.2022; 33(5): 1875. CrossRef
Letter to the Editor Regarding “Anterior Bone Loss in Cervical Disk Arthroplasty Correlates with Increased Cervical Lordosis” Ioannis Siasios, Kalliopi Tsoleka, Ethymia Samara, Theodosis Birbilis World Neurosurgery.2022; 166: 288. CrossRef
Safety and Validity of Anterior Cervical Disc Replacement for Single-level Cervical Disc Disease: Initial Two-year Follow-up of the Prospective Observational Post-marketing Surveillance Study for Japanese Patients Toshihiro TAKAMI, Takeshi HARA, Masahito HARA, Toshihiko INUI, Kiyoshi ITO, Izumi KOYANAGI, Junichi MIZUNO, Masaki MIZUNO, Hiroyuki NAKASE, Nobuyuki SHIMOKAWA, Taku SUGAWARA, Shinsuke SUZUKI, Toshiyuki TAKAHASHI, Masakazu TAKAYASU, Satoshi TANI, Kazutoshi Neurologia medico-chirurgica.2022; 62(11): 489. CrossRef
Does the sizing of current cervical disc arthroplasty systems match Chinese cervical anatomic dimensions? Lu Wang, Meng Bai, Xing-Bin Li, Zhao-Rui Wang, Bang Wang, Ai-Bing Huang Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology.2022;[Epub] CrossRef
Multilevel cervical disc arthroplasty: a review of optimal surgical management and future directions Tsung-Hsi Tu, Ching-Ying Wang, Yu-Chun Chen, Jau-Ching Wu Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine.2022; : 1. CrossRef
Cervical disc arthroplasty for Klippel-Feil syndrome Chu-Yi Lee, Ching-Lan Wu, Hsuan-Kan Chang, Jau-Ching Wu, Wen-Cheng Huang, Henrich Cheng, Tsung-Hsi Tu Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery.2021; 209: 106934. CrossRef
Cervical disc arthroplasty: What we know in 2020 and a literature review Jun Jae Shin, Kwang-Ryeol Kim, Dong Wuk Son, Dong Ah Shin, Seong Yi, Keung-Nyun Kim, Do-Heum Yoon, Yoon Ha, K Daniel Riew Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery.2021;[Epub] CrossRef
Late complication of cervical disc arthroplasty: heterotopic ossification causing myelopathy after 10 years. Illustrative case Che-Han Hsu, Yi-Hsuan Kuo, Chao-Hung Kuo, Chin-Chu Ko, Jau-Ching Wu, Wen-Cheng Huang Journal of Neurosurgery: Case Lessons.2021;[Epub] CrossRef
Cervical disc arthroplasty at C2–3: illustrative case Jason Ku, Johnson Ku, Hsuan-Kan Chang, Jau-Ching Wu Journal of Neurosurgery: Case Lessons.2021;[Epub] CrossRef
Cervical Disc Replacement Jeremy Steinberger, Sheeraz Qureshi Neurosurgery Clinics of North America.2020; 31(1): 73. CrossRef
Comparison of cervical disc arthroplasty and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for the treatment of cervical disc degenerative diseases on the basis of more than 60 months of follow-up: a systematic review and meta-analysis Yijian Zhang, Nanning Lv, Fan He, Bin Pi, Hao Liu, Angela Carley Chen, Huilin Yang, Mingming Liu, Xuesong Zhu BMC Neurology.2020;[Epub] CrossRef
Letter to the Editor. Indolent clinical and radiological effects of cervical disc arthroplasty Wen-Cheng Huang, Yu-Chun Chen, Tsung-Hsi Tu, Hsuan-Kan Chang, Chao-Hung Kuo Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine.2020; 32(6): 984. CrossRef
Letter to the Editor. Cervical spondylotic myelopathy Atul Goel Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine.2020; 32(4): 631. CrossRef
Letter to the Editor. The need for research prioritization in cervical myelopathy Oliver Daniel Mowforth, Michelle Louise Starkey, Mark Reinhard Kotter, Benjamin Marshall Davies Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine.2020; 32(5): 777. CrossRef
Segmental Motion of the Cervical Spine After Total Disc Replacement Using ActivC Versus Discectomy and Fusion Using Stand-alone Cage Bum-Joon Kim, Se-Hoon Kim, Seung-Hwan Lee, Sung-Kon Ha, Sang-Dae Kim, Dong-Jun Lim World Neurosurgery.2019; 126: e1228. CrossRef
Cervical disc arthroplasty for less-mobile discs Tsung-Hsi Tu, Chu-Yi Lee, Chao-Hung Kuo, Jau-Ching Wu, Hsuan-Kan Chang, Li-Yu Fay, Wen-Cheng Huang, Henrich Cheng Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine.2019; 31(3): 310. CrossRef
Recent advances in the management of cervical spondylotic myelopathy: bibliometric analysis and surgical perspectives Yu-Chun Chen, Chao-Hung Kuo, Chieh-Ming Cheng, Jau-Ching Wu Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine.2019; 31(3): 299. CrossRef
Anterior Cervical Disc Replacement : Current Status and Future Perspective in Japan Toshihiro Takami, Kentaro Naito, Kenji Ohata Spinal Surgery.2019; 33(2): 144. CrossRef
Effect of Myelopathy on Early Clinical Improvement After Cervical Disc Replacement: A Study of a Local Patient Cohort and a Large National Cohort Andre M. Samuel, Harold G. Moore, Avani S. Vaishnav, Steven McAnany, Todd Albert, Sravisht Iyer, Yoshihiro Katsuura, Catherine Himo Gang, Sheeraz A. Qureshi Neurospine.2019; 16(3): 563. CrossRef
Preservation Versus Elimination of Segmental Motion in Anterior Cervical Spine Surgery Wen-Cheng Huang, Jau-Ching Wu Neurospine.2019; 16(3): 576. CrossRef
The Option of Motion Preservation in Cervical Spondylosis: Cervical Disc Arthroplasty Update
Fig. 1. Preoperative magnetic resonance images (sagittal and axial view over C5–6, A and B), computed tomography (axial view over C5–6 and sagittal, C and D).
Segmental mobility and overall cervical alignment had no influences on the clinical outcomes after CDA. However, patients with increased segmental mobility had less HO formation
Table 1. Summary of FDA-IDE trials
FDA-IDE, U. S. Food and Drug Administration-Investigational Device Exemption; ROM, range of motion; HO, heterotrophic ossification; ACDF, anterior cervical discectomy and fusion; CDA, cervical disc arthroplasty; N/A, not available.
Incidence of HO differed from detection method.
Approximation from figure.
Table 2. Other studies for different clinical scenario
HO, heterotrophic ossification; CDA, cervical disc arthroplasty; ACDF, anterior cervical discectomy and fusion; NSAID, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; OPLL, ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament; IISI, increased intramedullary signal intensity.
