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

Overview

Journal Global Spine J

Publisher Sage Publications

Date 2024 Jan 27

PMID 38279691

Authors

Paal K Nilssen

Nakul Narendran

Ida Chen

Linda E Kanim

Corey T Walker

Hyun W Bae

David L Skaggs

Alexander Tuchman

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Study Design: Retrospective Cohort.

Objectives: Most data regarding cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) outcomes are from highly controlled clinical trials with strict inclusion/exclusion criteria. This study aimed to identify risk factors for CDA reoperation, in "real world" clinical practice using a national insurance claims database.

Methods: The PearlDiver database was queried for patients (2010-2020) who underwent a subsequent cervical procedure following a single-level CDA. Patients with less than 2 years follow-up were excluded. Primary outcome was to evaluate risk factors for reoperation. Secondary outcome was to evaluate the types of reoperations. Risk factors were compared using descriptive statistics. Multivariate regression analyses were used to ascertain the association among risk factors and reoperation.

Results: Of 14,202 patients who met inclusion criteria, 916 (6.5%) underwent reoperation. Patients undergoing reoperation were slightly older with higher Elixhauser Comorbidity Index (ECI) scores, however both were not risk factors for reoperation. Patients with diagnoses such as smoking, myelopathy, inflammatory disorders, spinal deformity, trauma, or a history of prior cervical surgery were at greater risk for reoperation. No association was found between the year of index surgery and reoperation risk. The most common reoperation procedure was cervical fusion.

Conclusions: As billed for in the United States since 2010, CDA was associated with a 6.5% reoperation rate over a mean follow-up time of 5.3 years. Smoking, myelopathy, inflammatory disorders, spinal deformity, and a history of prior cervical surgery or trauma are risk factors for reoperation following CDA. Though patients who underwent a reoperation were older, age was not found to be an independent risk factor for a subsequent procedure.

Citing Articles

Complications and reoperations in young versus old patients undergoing cervical disc arthroplasty.

Nilssen P, Shafi K, Narendran N, Farivar D, Nomoto E, Mikhail C N Am Spine Soc J. 2025; 21:100589.

PMID: 40034338 PMC: 11875681. DOI: 10.1016/j.xnsj.2025.100589.

References

Wang Q, Tu Z, Hu P, Kontos F, Li Y, Li L . Long-term Results Comparing Cervical Disc Arthroplasty to Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Orthop Surg. 2019; 12(1):16-30. PMC: 7031601. DOI: 10.1111/os.12585. View

Skovrlj B, Lee D, Caridi J, Cho S . Reoperations Following Cervical Disc Replacement. Asian Spine J. 2015; 9(3):471-82. PMC: 4472600. DOI: 10.4184/asj.2015.9.3.471. View

Hilibrand A, Carlson G, Palumbo M, Jones P, Bohlman H . Radiculopathy and myelopathy at segments adjacent to the site of a previous anterior cervical arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1999; 81(4):519-28. DOI: 10.2106/00004623-199904000-00009. View

Bohlman H, Emery S, Goodfellow D, Jones P . Robinson anterior cervical discectomy and arthrodesis for cervical radiculopathy. Long-term follow-up of one hundred and twenty-two patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1993; 75(9):1298-307. DOI: 10.2106/00004623-199309000-00005. View

Delamarter R, Zigler J . Five-year reoperation rates, cervical total disc replacement versus fusion, results of a prospective randomized clinical trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012; 38(9):711-7. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182797592. View

Shin J, Kim K, Son D, Shin D, Yi S, Kim K . Cervical disc arthroplasty: What we know in 2020 and a literature review. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2021; 29(1_suppl):23094990211006934. DOI: 10.1177/23094990211006934. View

Veeravagu A, Cole T, Jiang B, Ratliff J . Revision rates and complication incidence in single- and multilevel anterior cervical discectomy and fusion procedures: an administrative database study. Spine J. 2013; 14(7):1125-31. DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2013.07.474. View

Joaquim A, Lee N, Riew K . Revision Surgeries at the Index Level After Cervical Disc Arthroplasty - A Systematic Review. Neurospine. 2021; 18(1):34-44. PMC: 8021828. DOI: 10.14245/ns.2040454.227. View

Kumar C, Dietz N, Sharma M, Wang D, Ugiliweneza B, Boakye M . Long-Term Comparison of Health Care Utilization and Reoperation Rates in Patients Undergoing Cervical Disc Arthroplasty and Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion for Cervical Degenerative Disc Disease. World Neurosurg. 2019; 134:e855-e865. DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2019.11.012. View

10.

Auerbach J, Jones K, Fras C, Balderston J, Rushton S, Chin K . The prevalence of indications and contraindications to cervical total disc replacement. Spine J. 2007; 8(5):711-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2007.06.018. View

11.

Coric D, Nunley P, Guyer R, Musante D, Carmody C, Gordon C . Prospective, randomized, multicenter study of cervical arthroplasty: 269 patients from the Kineflex|C artificial disc investigational device exemption study with a minimum 2-year follow-up: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine. 2011; 15(4):348-58. DOI: 10.3171/2011.5.SPINE10769. View

12.

Zavras A, Sullivan T, Singh K, Phillips F, Colman M . Failure in cervical total disc arthroplasty: single institution experience, systematic review of the literature, and proposal of the RUSH TDA failure classification system. Spine J. 2021; 22(3):353-369. DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2021.08.006. View

13.

MacDowall A, Skeppholm M, Lindhagen L, Robinson Y, Lofgren H, Michaelsson K . Artificial disc replacement versus fusion in patients with cervical degenerative disc disease with radiculopathy: 5-year outcomes from the National Swedish Spine Register. J Neurosurg Spine. 2018; 30(2):159-167. DOI: 10.3171/2018.7.SPINE18657. View

14.

Gornet M, Kenneth Burkus J, Shaffrey M, Argires P, Nian H, Harrell Jr F . Cervical disc arthroplasty with PRESTIGE LP disc versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a prospective, multicenter investigational device exemption study. J Neurosurg Spine. 2015; 23(5):558-573. DOI: 10.3171/2015.1.SPINE14589. View

15.

Patel N, Abdelmalek G, Coban D, Changoor S, Sinha K, Hwang K . Should patient eligibility criteria for cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) be expanded? A retrospective cohort analysis of relatively contraindicated patients undergoing CDA. Spine J. 2023; 24(2):210-218. DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2023.09.017. View

16.

Rajaee S, Bae H, Kanim L, Delamarter R . Spinal fusion in the United States: analysis of trends from 1998 to 2008. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011; 37(1):67-76. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31820cccfb. View

17.

Saifi C, Fein A, Cazzulino A, Lehman R, Phillips F, An H . Trends in resource utilization and rate of cervical disc arthroplasty and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion throughout the United States from 2006 to 2013. Spine J. 2017; 18(6):1022-1029. DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2017.10.072. View

18.

Skeppholm M, Lindgren L, Henriques T, Vavruch L, Lofgren H, Olerud C . The Discover artificial disc replacement versus fusion in cervical radiculopathy--a randomized controlled outcome trial with 2-year follow-up. Spine J. 2015; 15(6):1284-94. DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2015.02.039. View

19.

Phillips F, Lee J, Geisler F, Cappuccino A, Chaput C, DeVine J . 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(15):E907-18. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e318296232f. View

20.

Heller J, Sasso R, Papadopoulos S, Anderson P, Fessler R, Hacker R . 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). 2008; 34(2):101-7. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31818ee263. View