Cervical Disc Arthroplasty: Rationale, Designs, and Results of Randomized Controlled Trials

Overview

Journal Int J Spine Surg

Date 2024 Feb 27

PMID 38413235

Authors

Djani M Robertson

Andy Ton

Michael Brown

Shane Shahrestani

Emily S Mills

Jeffrey C Wang

Raymond J Hah

Ram K Alluri

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: This review outlines clinical data and characteristics of current Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved implants in cervical disc replacement/cervical disc arthroplasty (CDR/CDA) to provide a centralized resource for spine surgeons.

Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on CDR/CDA were identified using a search of the PubMed, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases. The initial search identified 69 studies. Duplicates were removed, and the following inclusion criteria were applied when determining eligibility of RCTs for the current review: (1) discussing CDR/CDA prosthesis and (2) published within between 2010 and 2020. Studies without clinical data or that were not RCTs were excluded. All articles were reviewed independently by 2 authors, with the involvement of an arbitrator to facilitate consensus on any discrepancies.

Results: A total of 34 studies were included in the final review. Findings were synthesized into a comprehensive table describing key features and clinical results for each FDA-approved CDR/CDA implant and are overall suggestive of expanding indications and increasing utilization.

Conclusions: RCTs have provided substantial evidence to support CDR/CDA for treating single- and 2-level cervical degenerative disc disease in place of conventional anterior cervical discectomy and fusion.

Clinical Relevance: This review provides a resource that consolidates relevant clinical data for current FDA-approved implants to help spine surgeons make an informed decision during preoperative planning.

Level Of Evidence: 5:

References

Boddapati V, Lee N, Mathew J, Vulapalli M, Lombardi J, Dyrszka M . Hybrid Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion and Cervical Disc Arthroplasty: An Analysis of Short-Term Complications, Reoperations, and Readmissions. Global Spine J. 2020; 11(8):1183-1189. PMC: 8453682. DOI: 10.1177/2192568220941453. View

Sundseth J, Fredriksli O, Kolstad F, Johnsen L, Pripp A, Andresen H . The Norwegian Cervical Arthroplasty Trial (NORCAT): 2-year clinical outcome after single-level cervical arthroplasty versus fusion-a prospective, single-blinded, randomized, controlled multicenter study. Eur Spine J. 2016; 26(4):1225-1235. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-016-4922-5. View

Hacker R . Cervical disc arthroplasty: a controlled randomized prospective study with intermediate follow-up results. Invited submission from the joint section meeting on disorders of the spine and peripheral nerves, March 2005. J Neurosurg Spine. 2005; 3(6):424-8. DOI: 10.3171/spi.2005.3.6.0424. View

Lavelle W, Riew K, Levi A, Florman J . Ten-year Outcomes of Cervical Disc Replacement With the BRYAN Cervical Disc: Results From a Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2018; 44(9):601-608. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000002907. View

Radcliff K, Davis R, Hisey M, Nunley P, Hoffman G, Jackson R . Long-term Evaluation of Cervical Disc Arthroplasty with the Mobi-C© Cervical Disc: A Randomized, Prospective, Multicenter Clinical Trial with Seven-Year Follow-up. Int J Spine Surg. 2018; 11:31. PMC: 5779239. DOI: 10.14444/4031. View

Hisey M, Zigler J, Jackson R, Nunley P, Bae H, Kim K . Prospective, Randomized Comparison of One-level Mobi-C Cervical Total Disc Replacement vs. Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: Results at 5-year Follow-up. Int J Spine Surg. 2016; 10:10. PMC: 4852596. DOI: 10.14444/3010. View

Nabhan A, Steudel W, Nabhan A, Pape D, Ishak B . Segmental kinematics and adjacent level degeneration following disc replacement versus fusion: RCT with three years of follow-up. J Long Term Eff Med Implants. 2008; 17(3):229-36. DOI: 10.1615/jlongtermeffmedimplants.v17.i3.60. View

Chang H, Huang W, Tu T, Fay L, Kuo C, Chang C . Radiological and clinical outcomes of 3-level cervical disc arthroplasty. J Neurosurg Spine. 2019; 32(2):174-181. DOI: 10.3171/2019.8.SPINE19545. View

McAfee P, Reah C, Gilder K, Eisermann L, Cunningham B . A meta-analysis of comparative outcomes following cervical arthroplasty or anterior cervical fusion: results from 4 prospective multicenter randomized clinical trials and up to 1226 patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011; 37(11):943-52. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31823da169. View

10.

Laratta J, Shillingford J, Saifi C, Riew K . Cervical Disc Arthroplasty: A Comprehensive Review of Single-Level, Multilevel, and Hybrid Procedures. Global Spine J. 2018; 8(1):78-83. PMC: 5810892. DOI: 10.1177/2192568217701095. View

11.

Phillips F, Geisler F, Gilder K, Reah C, Howell K, McAfee P . Long-term Outcomes of the US FDA IDE Prospective, Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial Comparing PCM Cervical Disc Arthroplasty With Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015; 40(10):674-83. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000000869. View

12.

Vaccaro A, Beutler W, Peppelman W, Marzluff J, Mugglin A, Ramakrishnan P . Long-Term Clinical Experience with Selectively Constrained SECURE-C Cervical Artificial Disc for 1-Level Cervical Disc Disease: Results from Seven-Year Follow-Up of a Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Investigational Device Exemption Clinical Trial. Int J Spine Surg. 2018; 12(3):377-387. PMC: 6159663. DOI: 10.14444/5044. View

13.

Park S, Kim K, Jin Y, Kim H, Jahng T, Chung C . X-Ray-based Kinematic Analysis of Cervical Spine According to Prosthesis Designs: Analysis of the Mobi C, Bryan, PCM, and Prestige LP. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2013; 28(5):E291-7. DOI: 10.1097/BSD.0b013e318288a923. View

14.

Gao F, Mao T, Sun W, Guo W, Wang Y, Li Z . An Updated Meta-Analysis Comparing Artificial Cervical Disc Arthroplasty (CDA) Versus Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion (ACDF) for the Treatment of Cervical Degenerative Disc Disease (CDDD). Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015; 40(23):1816-23. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001138. View

15.

Sasso W, Smucker J, Sasso M, Sasso R . Long-term Clinical Outcomes of Cervical Disc Arthroplasty: A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2017; 42(4):209-216. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001746. View

16.

Derman P, Zigler J . Cervical Disc Arthroplasty: Rationale and History. Int J Spine Surg. 2020; 14(s2):S5-S13. PMC: 7528773. DOI: 10.14444/7086. View

17.

Xu S, Liang Y, Zhu Z, Qian Y, Liu H . Adjacent segment degeneration or disease after cervical total disc replacement: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Orthop Surg Res. 2018; 13(1):244. PMC: 6169069. DOI: 10.1186/s13018-018-0940-9. View

18.

Zhang H, Shao Y, Chen Y, Hou Y, Cheng L, Si M . A prospective, randomised, controlled multicentre study comparing cervical disc replacement with anterior cervical decompression and fusion. Int Orthop. 2014; 38(12):2533-41. DOI: 10.1007/s00264-014-2497-5. View

19.

Tu T, Wang C, Chen Y, Wu J . Multilevel cervical disc arthroplasty: a review of optimal surgical management and future directions. J Neurosurg Spine. 2023; 38(3):372-381. DOI: 10.3171/2022.11.SPINE22880. View

20.

Zhu Y, Tian Z, Zhu B, Zhang W, Li Y, Zhu Q . Bryan Cervical Disc Arthroplasty Versus Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion for Treatment of Cervical Disc Diseases: A Meta-analysis of Prospective, Randomized Controlled Trials. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015; 41(12):E733-E741. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001367. View