PURPOSE: Cervical disc arthroplasty has become a commonplace surgery for the treatment of cervical radiculopathy and myelopathy. Most manufacturers derive their implant dimensions from early published cadaver studies. Ideal footprint match of the prosthesis is essential for good surgical outcome. METHODS: We measured the dimensions of cervical vertebrae from computed tomography (CT) scans and to assess the accuracy of match achieved with the most common cervical disc prostheses [Bryan (Medtronic), Prestige LP (Medtronic), Discover (DePuy) Prodisc-C (Synthes)]. A total of 192 endplates in 24 patients (56.3 years) were assessed. The anterior-posterior and mediolateral diameters of the superior and inferior endplates were measured with a digital measuring system. RESULTS: Overall, 53.5 % of the largest device footprints were smaller in the anterior-posterior diameter and 51.1 % in the mediolateral diameter were smaller than cervical endplate diameters. For levels C5/C6 and C6/C7 an inappropriate size match was noted in 61.9 % as calculated from the anteroposterior diameter. Mismatch at the center mediolateral diameter was noted in 56.8 %. Of the endplates in the current study up to 58.1 % of C5/C6 and C6/C7, and up to 45.3 % of C3/C4 and C4/C5 were larger than the most frequently implanted cervical disc devices. CONCLUSION: Surgeons and manufacturers should be aware of the size mismatch in currently available cervical disc prostheses, which may endanger the safety and efficacy of the procedure. Undersizing the prosthetic device may lead to subsidence, loosening, heterotopic ossification and biomechanical failure caused by an incorrect center of rotation and load distribution, affecting the facet joints.
PURPOSE: Cervical disc arthroplasty has become a commonplace surgery for the treatment of cervical radiculopathy and myelopathy. Most manufacturers derive their implant dimensions from early published cadaver studies. Ideal footprint match of the prosthesis is essential for good surgical outcome. METHODS: We measured the dimensions of cervical vertebrae from computed tomography (CT) scans and to assess the accuracy of match achieved with the most common cervical disc prostheses [Bryan (Medtronic), Prestige LP (Medtronic), Discover (DePuy) Prodisc-C (Synthes)]. A total of 192 endplates in 24 patients (56.3 years) were assessed. The anterior-posterior and mediolateral diameters of the superior and inferior endplates were measured with a digital measuring system. RESULTS: Overall, 53.5 % of the largest device footprints were smaller in the anterior-posterior diameter and 51.1 % in the mediolateral diameter were smaller than cervical endplate diameters. For levels C5/C6 and C6/C7 an inappropriate size match was noted in 61.9 % as calculated from the anteroposterior diameter. Mismatch at the center mediolateral diameter was noted in 56.8 %. Of the endplates in the current study up to 58.1 % of C5/C6 and C6/C7, and up to 45.3 % of C3/C4 and C4/C5 were larger than the most frequently implanted cervical disc devices. CONCLUSION: Surgeons and manufacturers should be aware of the size mismatch in currently available cervical disc prostheses, which may endanger the safety and efficacy of the procedure. Undersizing the prosthetic device may lead to subsidence, loosening, heterotopic ossification and biomechanical failure caused by an incorrect center of rotation and load distribution, affecting the facet joints.
Authors: Jason C Eck; S Craig Humphreys; Tae-Hong Lim; Soon Tack Jeong; Jesse G Kim; Scott D Hodges; Howard S An Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2002-11-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Eeric Truumees; Constantine K Demetropoulos; King H Yang; Harry N Herkowitz Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2003-10-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: T H Lim; H Kwon; C H Jeon; J G Kim; M Sokolowski; R Natarajan; H S An; G B Andersson Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2001-04-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Ilona Punt; Marc van Rijsbergen; Bert van Rietbergen; Keita Ito; Lodewijk van Rhijn; André van Ooij; Paul Willems Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2013-06-15 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Matthew F Gornet; Todd H Lanman; J Kenneth Burkus; Scott D Hodges; Jeffrey R McConnell; Randall F Dryer; Francine W Schranck; Anne G Copay Journal: Int J Spine Surg Date: 2019-12-31