Dante Leven1,2, Joshua Meaike3, Kris Radcliff4, Sheeraz Qureshi3. 1. Nassau University Medical Center, East Meadow, NY, USA. danteleven@gmail.com. 2. , 5500 Merrick Ave, Massapequa, NY, 11758, USA. danteleven@gmail.com. 3. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, 5 E 98th St, New York, NY, 10029, USA. 4. Rothman Institute, 925 Chestnut St, Philapdelphis, PA, 19107, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Cervical disc replacement (CDR) is a surgical option for appropriately indicated patients, and high success rates have been reported in the literature. Complications and failures are often associated with patient indications or technical variables, and the goal of this review is to assist surgeons in understanding these factors. RECENT FINDINGS: Several investigations have been published in the last 5 years supporting the use of CDR in specific patient populations. CDR has been shown to be comparable or favorable to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion in several meta-analyses and mid-term follow-up studies. CDR was developed as a technique to preserve motion following a decompression procedure while minimizing several of the complications associated with fusion and posterior cervical spine procedures. Though success with cervical fusion and posterior foraminotomy has been well documented in the literature, high rates of mid- and long-term complications have been clearly established. CDR has also been associated with several complications and challenges with regard to surgical technique, though improvements in implant design have lead to an increase in utilization. Several devices currently exist and vary in terms of material, design, and outcomes. This review paper discusses indications, surgical technique, and technical pearls and reviews the CDR devices currently available.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Cervical disc replacement (CDR) is a surgical option for appropriately indicated patients, and high success rates have been reported in the literature. Complications and failures are often associated with patient indications or technical variables, and the goal of this review is to assist surgeons in understanding these factors. RECENT FINDINGS: Several investigations have been published in the last 5 years supporting the use of CDR in specific patient populations. CDR has been shown to be comparable or favorable to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion in several meta-analyses and mid-term follow-up studies. CDR was developed as a technique to preserve motion following a decompression procedure while minimizing several of the complications associated with fusion and posterior cervical spine procedures. Though success with cervical fusion and posterior foraminotomy has been well documented in the literature, high rates of mid- and long-term complications have been clearly established. CDR has also been associated with several complications and challenges with regard to surgical technique, though improvements in implant design have lead to an increase in utilization. Several devices currently exist and vary in terms of material, design, and outcomes. This review paper discusses indications, surgical technique, and technical pearls and reviews the CDR devices currently available.
Authors: Pierce D Nunley; Ajay Jawahar; Eubulus J Kerr; Charles J Gordon; David A Cavanaugh; Elisa M Birdsong; Marolyn Stocks; Guy Danielson Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2012-03-15 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: Daniel Murrey; Michael Janssen; Rick Delamarter; Jeffrey Goldstein; Jack Zigler; Bobby Tay; Bruce Darden Journal: Spine J Date: 2008-09-06 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: Melvin C Makhni; Joseph A Osorio; Paul J Park; Joseph M Lombardi; Kiehyun Daniel Riew Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2018-12-05 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: S Finkenstaedt; A F Mannion; T F Fekete; D Haschtmann; F S Kleinstueck; U Mutter; H J Becker; D Bellut; F Porchet Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2019-07-08 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Anna Lang; Sara Lener; Lukas Grassner; Anto Abramovic; Claudius Thomé; Dennis Päsler; Jens Lehmberg; Ralph Schär; Sebastian Hartmann Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2022-10-11 Impact factor: 2.721