Historical review of cervical arthroplasty

Le, Hoang; Thongtrangan, Issada; Kim, Daniel H.

doi:10.3171/foc.2004.17.3.1

Cited by 71 publications

(56 citation statements)

References 77 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Cummins at the Frenchay Hospital in Bristol, UK, in 1989. In a 2004 review, Le et al 20 described this as a 2-piece, metal-on-metal device composed of stainless steel. The articulating surface was a ball-and-socket design with 2 (initially 1) anterior anchoring screws that fixed each piece of the device to the adjacent vertebral bodies.…”

Section: The Cummins-bristol Discmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

History of cervical disc arthroplasty

Baaj

Uribe

Vale

et al. 2009

FOC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Enthusiasm for cervical disc arthroplasty is based on the premise that motion-preserving devices attenuate the progression of adjacent-segment disease (ASD) in the cervical spine. Arthrodesis, on the other hand, results in abnormal load transfer on adjacent segments, leading to the acceleration of ASD. It has taken several decades of pioneering work to produce clinically relevant devices that mimic the kinematics of the intervertebral disc. The goal of this work is to trace the origins of cervical arthroplasty technology and highlight the attributes of devices currently available in the market.

show abstract

Section: The Cummins-bristol Discmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Clinical follow-up, however, demonstrated unacceptable rates of device subsidence, migration, and adjacent-segment hypermobility. 20 Given these failures, interest in cervical arthroplasty diminished in favor of arthrodesis techniques developed by Smith and Robinson. 31 …”

Section: First Artificial Cervical Devicementioning

confidence: 99%

History of cervical disc arthroplasty

Baaj

Uribe

Vale

et al. 2009

FOC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[1][2][3][4] Up to 25% of all patients with ventral discectomy and cervical spine fusion require further surgery within 10 years, particularly because of an adjacent segment disease. 5 Cervical degenerative changes of the adjacent segments after cervical spine fusions occur commonly among paraplegics and frequently cause serious problems (Figures 1a and b). Besides grotesque ventral spondylophytes with dysphagia, there areF among other thingsFsymptoms of discopathy as a consequence of root compressions, accompanied by functional deficiencies (Figures 2a and b).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Artificial disc versus spinal fusion in the treatment of cervical spine degenerations in tetraplegics: a comparison of clinical results

Röhl

Röhrich

2009

Spinal Cord

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Study design: Comparative prospective study. Objectives: To determine functionality of the cervical spine when using ProDisc C in comparison with the conventional method of treatment (decompression and fusion) in paraplegics. Setting: Spinal Cord Injury Centre in Germany. Methods: Two homogeneous groups were studied. The patients were treated with ventral decompression and either had a fusion with an iliac bone graft and plate (group 1) or had received a disc replacement (group 2). Pre-and postoperatively, the subjective scores of SF 36 and Neck Disability Score were determined. Also, objective data of the Spinal Cord Independence Measure (SCIM) III and mobility of the cervical spine, using the neutral-0-method, were evaluated. Prosthesis implementation and union or fusion were monitored by X-rays. Complications and alterations of the neurology were recorded according to the American Spinal Injury Association Score. Results: Neurological remissions of the radicular syndrome that caused the operation were observed. In one case, the dislocation of the prosthesis necessitated an alternative treatment. Mobility of the cervical spine after 6 months was higher in group 2. Both groups showed signs of improvement in the Neck Disability Score and in SF 36. None of the two groups had changes in their SCIM score. One case in group 2 showed ventral blocking; all cases of group 1 fused successfully. Conclusion: Usage of prostheses results in improved total mobility of the cervical spine in comparison with the outcomes of a fusion. This study also confirmed these results in tetraplegics.

show abstract

“…Biomechanical studies have reported increased motion and stresses in adjacent segments after fusion, which are thought to accelerate their degeneration [9,15]. More recently, total disc replacement (TDR) has been recommended as an alternative to ACDF [4,12,26,30,43,55]. TDR has been clinically used for the treatment of radiculopathy and myelopathy, aiming at replicating the natural motions of the treated level [24,53].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Primary and coupled motions after cervical total disc replacement using a compressible six-degree-of-freedom prosthesis

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study tested the hypotheses that (1) cervical total disc replacement with a compressible, sixdegree-of-freedom prosthesis would allow restoration of physiologic range and quality of motion, and (2) the kinematic response would not be adversely affected by variability in prosthesis position in the sagittal plane. Twelve human cadaveric cervical spines were tested. Prostheses were implanted at C5-C6. Range of motion (ROM) was measured in flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation under ±1.5 Nm moments. Motion coupling between axial rotation and lateral bending was calculated. Stiffness in the high flexibility zone was evaluated in all three testing modes, while the center of rotation (COR) was calculated using digital video fluoroscopic images in flexion-extension. Implantation in the middle position increased ROM in flexion-extension from 13.5 ± 2.3 to 15.7 ± 3.0°(p \ 0.05), decreased axial rotation from 9.9 ± 1.7 to 8.3 ± 1.6°(p \ 0.05), and decreased lateral bending from 8.0 ± 2.1 to 4.5 ± 1.1°( p \ 0.05). Coupled lateral bending decreased from 0.62 ± 0.16 to 0.39 ± 0.15°for each degree of axial rotation (p \ 0.05). Flexion-extension stiffness of the reconstructed segment with the prosthesis in the middle position did not deviate significantly from intact controls, whereas the lateral bending and axial rotation stiffness values were significantly larger than intact. Implanting the prosthesis in the posterior position as compared to the middle position did not significantly affect the ROM, motion coupling, or stiffness of the reconstructed segment; however, the COR location better approximated intact controls with the prosthesis midline located within ±1 mm of the disc-space midline. Overall, the kinematic response after reconstruction with the compressible, six-degree-offreedom prosthesis within ±1 mm of the disc-space midline approximated the intact response in flexion-extension. Clinical studies are needed to understand and interpret the effects of limited restoration of lateral bending and axial rotation motions and motion coupling on clinical outcome.

show abstract

Historical review of cervical arthroplasty

Cited by 71 publications

References 77 publications

History of cervical disc arthroplasty

History of cervical disc arthroplasty

Artificial disc versus spinal fusion in the treatment of cervical spine degenerations in tetraplegics: a comparison of clinical results

Primary and coupled motions after cervical total disc replacement using a compressible six-degree-of-freedom prosthesis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About