Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cech. 2020; 87(5):333-339 | DOI: 10.55095/achot2020/050

Clinical and Radiological Review of a Semi-Constrained Cervical Disc Replacement with a Ceramic-Ceramic Articulation with a Minimum Seven Years Follow-UpOriginal papers

G. N. SWAMY1,*, S. HOPWOOD1, S. K. NANJAYAN2, R. BOMMIREDDY2, Z. KLEZL2,3
1 Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals, Norwich, UK
2 Royal Derby Hospital, Uttoxeter New Road, Derby, UK
3 Charles University Medical School, Prague, CZ

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY:
Artificial cervical disc replacement (CDR) has emerged as a viable treatment alternative to fusion for the management of symptomatic compressive radiculopathy and potentially for cervical myelopathy. The aim of our study was to evaluate the clinical and radiological outcomes of patients treated with a second generation semi-constrained CDR with a ceramic-ceramic articulation.

MATERIAL AND METHODS:
A prospective cohort study of all patients undergoing a cervical disc replacement for cervical disc pathology, during the period from April 2007 to April 2011 using a ceramic-ceramic disc replacement comprised the study group. 52 patients were available for final clinical and radiological follow-up. Both, clinical and radiological evaluation were performed at each clinical visit at 6 weeks, 6 months, 12 months, 2 years, 5 years and 7 years.

RESULTS:
There were a total of 52 patients, with 44 single level cases and 8 two level cases. The NDI improved significantly (p < 0.05) from a mean preoperative score of 56 % to a score of 20% at final follow-up. The mean preoperative mobility at the index level unit was 12.2 ± 4.5°, this decreased to 7.9 ± 3.2° at six weeks, but slightly increased to 12.9 ± 2.9° at final follow-up (gain not significant). Heterotrophic ossification (HO) was noted in 13 (25%) patients.

CONCLUSIONS:
Cervical disc replacement with a ceramic-ceramic bearing surface is a viable option in the treatment of variety of cervical pathologies. This ceramic-ceramic interface may eliminate the potential problems of metallosis and poly-wear but further longer-term results should be studied.

Keywords: Cervical spine; disc replacement; ceramic articulation; neck disability; heterotrophic ossification

Published: October 1, 2020  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
SWAMY GN, HOPWOOD S, NANJAYAN SK, BOMMIREDDY R, KLEZL Z. Clinical and Radiological Review of a Semi-Constrained Cervical Disc Replacement with a Ceramic-Ceramic Articulation with a Minimum Seven Years Follow-Up. Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cech. 2020;87(5):333-339. doi: 10.55095/achot2020/050. PubMed PMID: 33146601.
Share...
Download citation
  • BibTeX (.bib)
  • Bookends (.ris)
  • EasyBib (.ris)
  • EndNote (.enw)
  • EndNote 8 (.xml)
  • ISI WoS (.isi)
  • Medlars (.medlars)
  • Mendeley (.ris)
  • MODS (.xml)
  • Papers (.ris)
  • RefWorks (.txt)
  • RefManager (.ris)
  • RIS (.ris)
  • MS Word (.xml)
  • Zotero (.ris)
    • Open full article

    References

    1. Acosta FL, Ames CP. Cervical disc arthroplasty: general introduction. Neurosurg Clin North Am. 2005;16:603-607. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    2. Anderson PA, Rouleau JP. Intervertebral disc arthroplasty. Spine. 2004;29:2779-2786. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    3. Baba H, Furusawa N, Imura S, Kawahara N, Tsuchiya H, Tomita K. Late radiographic findings after anterior cervical fusion for spondylotic myeloradiculopathy. Spine 1993;18:2167-2173. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    4. Bogduk N, Mercer S. Biomechanics of the cervical spine (I: Normal kinematics). Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2000;15:633-648. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    5. Brenke C, Scharf J, Schmieder K, Barth M. High prevalence of heterotopic ossification after cervical disc arthroplasty: outcome and intraoperative findings following explantation of 22 cervical disc prostheses. J Neurosurg Spine. 2012;17:141-146. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    6. Cavanaugh DA, Nunley PD, Kerr EJ 3rd, Werner DJ, Jawahar A. Delayed hyper-reactivity to metal ions after cervical disc arthroplasty: a case report and literature review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009;34:E262-265. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    7. 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;21:674-680. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    8. Fan H, Wu S, Wu Z, Wang Z, Guo Z. Implant failure of Bryan cervical disc due to broken polyurethane sheath: a case report. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012;37:E814-816. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    9. Goffin J, Van Calenbergh F, van Loon J, Casey A, Kehr P, Liebig K, Lind B, Logroscino C, Sgrambiglia R, Pointillart V. Intermediate follow-up after treatment of degenerative disc disease with the Bryan Cervical Disc Prosthesis: single-level and bi-level. Spine. 2003;28:2673-2678. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    10. Guyer RD. Early failure of metal-on-metal artificial disc prostheses associated with lymphocytic reaction; diagnosis and treatment experience in four cases. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011;36:E492-497. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    11. Guyer RD, Shellock J, MacLennan B, Hanscom D, Knight RQ, McCombe P, Jacobs JJ, Urban RM, Bradford D, Ohnmeiss DD. Intervertebral disc prostheses. Spine. 2003;28(15 Suppl):S15-S23 Go to original source...
    12. Hilibrand AS, Balasubramanian K, Eichenbaum M, Thinnes JH, Daffner S, Berta S, Albert TJ, Vaccaro AR, Siegler S. The effect of anterior cervical fusion on neck motion. Spine (Phila PA 1976). 2006;31:1688-1692. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    13. Hilibrand AS, Robbins M. Adjacent segment degeneration and adjacent segment disease: the consequences of spinal fusion? Spine J. 2004;4:190S-194S. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    14. Hunter LY, Braunstein EM, Bailey RW. Radiographic changes following anterior cervical fusion. Spine. 1980;5:399-401. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    15. Ishihara H, Kanamori M, Kawaguchi Y, Nakamura H, Kimura T. Adjacent segment disease after anterior cervical interbody fusion. Spine J. 2004;4:624-628. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    16. Kettler A, Bushelow M, Wilke HJ. Influence of loading frequency on the wear rate of a polyethylene-on-metal lumbar intervertebral disc replacement. Eur Spine J. 2012;21(Suppl 5):S709-S716. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    17. Kraemer P, Fehlings MG, Hashimoto R, Lee MJ, Anderson PA, Chapman JR, Raich A, Norvell DC. A systematic review of definitions and classification systems of adjacent segment pathology. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012;37(22 Suppl):S31-9. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    18. Lebl DR, Cammisa FP, Frank P Jr, Girardi FP, Wright T, Abjornson C. The mechanical performance of cervical disc replacements in vivo: prospective retrieval analysis of prodisc-C devices. Spine. 2012;37:2151-2160. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    19. Leung C, Casey A, Goffin J, Kehr P, Liebig K, Lind B, Logroscino C, Pointillart V. Clinical significance of heterotopic ossification in cervical disc replacement: a prospective multicenter clinical trial. Neurosurgery. 2005;57:759-763. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    20. Lee SE, Chung CK, Jahng TA. Early development and progression of heterotopic ossification in cervical total disc replacement. J Neurosurg Spine. 2012;16:31-36. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    21. Lopez-Espina CG, Amirouche F, Havalad V. Multilevel cervical fusion and its effect on disc degeneration and osteophyte formation. Spine. 2006;31:972-978. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    22. Mehren C, Suchomel P, Grochulla F, et al. Heterotopic ossification in total cervical artificial disc replacement. Spine. 2006;31:2802-2806 Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    23. Moatz B, Tortolani J. Cervical disc arthroplasty: pros and cons. Surg Neurol Int. 2012;3(Suppl 3):S216-S224. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    24. Phillips FM, Garfin SR. Cervical disc replacement. Spine. 2005;30(17 Suppl):S27-S33. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    25. Phillips FM, Lee JY, Geisler FH, Gilder KM, Howell KM, McAfee PC. A prospective, randomized, controlled clinical investigation comparing PCM cervical disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. 2-year results from the US FDA IDE clinical trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013;38:E907-918. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    26. Pickett GE, Rouleau JP, Duggal N. Kinematic analysis of the cervical spine following implantation of an artificial cervical disc. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005;30:1949-1954. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    27. Pivec R, Johnson AJ, Mears SC, Mont MA. Hip arthroplasty. Lancet. 2012;380:1768-1777. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    28. Puttlitz CM, Rousseau MA, Xu Z, Hu S, Tay BK, Lotz JC. Intervertebral disc replacement maintains cervical spine kinetics. Spine. 2004;29:2809-2814. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    29. Reitman CA, Hipp JA, Nguyen L, Esses SI. Changes in segmental intervertebral motion adjacent to cervical arthrodesis: a prospective study. Spine. 2004;29:E221-E226 Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    30. Reyes-Sanchez A, Miramontes V, 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;4:9-15. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    31. Riew KD, Buchowski JM, Anderson PA, Sekhon L. Cervical disc arthroplasty compared with arthrodesis for the treatment of myelopathy. Surgical technique. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(Suppl 2):223-232. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    32. 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;3:417-423. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    33. Sears WR, McCombe PF, Sasso RC. Kinematics of cervical and lumbar total disc replacement. Semin Spine Surg. 2006;18:117-129. Go to original source...
    34. Smith GW, Robinson RA. The treatment of certain cervical-spine disorders by anterior removal of the intervertebral disc and interbody fusion. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1958;40:607-624. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    35. Stulik J, Ronai M, Rudinsky B, Zarzycki D, Latka D, Matejka J, Baeesa S. Quality of life following prestige LP cervical disc arthroplasty in a prospective multicountry study. Int J Spine Surg. 2019;13:221-229. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    36. Suchomel P, Jurák L, Benes V 3rd, Brabec R, Bradác O, Elgawhary S. Clinical results and development of heterotopic ossification in total cervical disc replacement during a 4-year follow-up. Eur Spine J. 2010;19:307-315. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    37. Truumees E, Herkowitz HN. Adjacent segment degeneration in the cervical spine: incidence and management. Semin Spine Surg. 1999;11:373-383.
    38. Wigfield C, Gill S, Nelson R, Langdon I, Metcalf N, Robertson J. Influence of an artificial cervical joint compared with fusion on adjacent-level motion in the treatment of degenerative cervical disc disease. J Neurosurg. 2002;96(1 Suppl):17-21. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    39. Yin S, Yu X, Zhou S, Yin Z, Qiu Y. Is cervical disc arthroplasty superior to fusion for treatment of symptomatic cervical disc disease? A meta-analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471:1904-1919. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...

    Return to the content