Aaron J Buckland1, Joseph F Baker2, Ryan P Roach1, Jeffrey M Spivak1. 1. Department of Spine and Spinal Deformity Surgery, Hospital for Joint Diseases NYU Langone Medical Center, 301 East 17th Street, New York, 10003, NY, USA. 2. Department of Spine and Spinal Deformity Surgery, Hospital for Joint Diseases NYU Langone Medical Center, 301 East 17th Street, New York, 10003, NY, USA. joseph.f.baker@gmail.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Cervical disc replacement has become an acceptable alternative to anterior cervical fusion for the surgical treatment of cervical spine spondylosis resulting in radiculopathy or myelopathy following anterior discectomy and decompression. This concise overview considers the current state of knowledge regarding the continued debate of the role of cervical disc replacement with an update in light of the latest clinical trial results. METHODS: A literature review was performed identifying clinical trials pertaining to the use of cervical disc replacement compared to cervical discectomy and fusion. Single level disease and two level disease were considered. Outcome data from the major clinical trials was reviewed and salient points identified. RESULTS: With lengthier follow-up data becoming available, the equivalence of CDR in appropriately selected cases is becoming clear. This is chiefly manifested by reduced re-operation rates and reduced incidence of adjacent level disease in those treated with arthroplasty. CONCLUSION: Cervical disc replacement shows emerging equivalence in outcomes compared to the gold standard anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Further longer term results are anticipated to confirm this trend.
PURPOSE: Cervical disc replacement has become an acceptable alternative to anterior cervical fusion for the surgical treatment of cervical spine spondylosis resulting in radiculopathy or myelopathy following anterior discectomy and decompression. This concise overview considers the current state of knowledge regarding the continued debate of the role of cervical disc replacement with an update in light of the latest clinical trial results. METHODS: A literature review was performed identifying clinical trials pertaining to the use of cervical disc replacement compared to cervical discectomy and fusion. Single level disease and two level disease were considered. Outcome data from the major clinical trials was reviewed and salient points identified. RESULTS: With lengthier follow-up data becoming available, the equivalence of CDR in appropriately selected cases is becoming clear. This is chiefly manifested by reduced re-operation rates and reduced incidence of adjacent level disease in those treated with arthroplasty. CONCLUSION: Cervical disc replacement shows emerging equivalence in outcomes compared to the gold standard anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Further longer term results are anticipated to confirm this trend.
Authors: Michael S Hisey; Hyun W Bae; Reginald J Davis; Steven Gaede; Greg Hoffman; Kee D Kim; Pierce D Nunley; Daniel Peterson; Ralph F Rashbaum; John Stokes; Donna D Ohnmeiss Journal: J Spinal Disord Tech Date: 2015-05
Authors: Anup A Gandhi; Swathi Kode; Nicole A DeVries; Nicole M Grosland; Joseph D Smucker; Douglas C Fredericks Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2015-10-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Frank M Phillips; Fred H Geisler; Kye M Gilder; Christopher Reah; Kelli M Howell; Paul C McAfee Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2015-05-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Pierce D Nunley; Ajay Jawahar; David A Cavanaugh; Charles R Gordon; Eubulus J Kerr; Phillip Andrew Utter Journal: Spine J Date: 2013-01-11 Impact factor: 4.166
Authors: Jack E Zigler; Rick Delamarter; Dan Murrey; Jeffrey Spivak; Michael Janssen Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2013-02-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Sarah E Gullbrand; Beth G Ashinsky; Edward D Bonnevie; Dong Hwa Kim; Julie B Engiles; Lachlan J Smith; Dawn M Elliott; Thomas P Schaer; Harvey E Smith; Robert L Mauck Journal: Sci Transl Med Date: 2018-11-21 Impact factor: 17.956
Authors: Pei-I Lin; Tai-Hsiang Chen; Hsien-Hui Chung; Tsung-Ming Su; Chen-Chung Ma; Tzu-Chi Ou Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-02-01 Impact factor: 3.390