C3-C4 cervical disc herniation producing Brown-Séquard syndrome: A case report and review of the literature.

Brown-Séquard Syndrome (BSS) is a rare form of incomplete spinal cord injury and is characterized by ipsilateral motor deficit and contralateral sensory loss. BSS is commonly associated with traumatic etiologies, but non-traumatic causes should be considered as well. A 38-year-old woman presented with a 3-week history of weakness in her right upper extremity, and she has developed numbness and tingling in her left upper and lower extremities over the past week and a half, along with some motor difficulty. Imaging showed a large right paracentral disc protrusion at the C3-C4 level causing severe spinal canal narrowing and resulting in abnormal cord signal. The patient subsequently underwent a C3-4 cervical total disk replacement. Hemovac placed during surgery was removed on post-op day one, and she was re-evaluated by PT/OT and recommended for outpatient therapies on post-op day two. Our case, along with a review of the literature, highlights those non-traumatic causes of BSS should be considered as a cause of BSS. BSS produced by a herniated cervical disc is extremely rare and is often misdiagnosed.

Treatment of failed cervical total disc replacements in a series of 53 cases and description of a management strategy.

PURPOSE: To describe modes of failure of cervical TDR, their related treatment strategies, and to describe a management strategy for the treatment of failed cervical TDR. METHODS: This retrospective study was based on a consecutive series of 53 cervical TDR patients who underwent removal or revision surgery. Chart review was conducted to collect general descriptive data, reasons for TDR removal/revision, duration from index implantation to re-operation, and the subsequent procedure performed. RESULTS: Among 53 patients, 36 underwent TDR removal and fusion, 16 underwent TDR removal and replacement with another TDR, and one patient's TDR was revised by repositioning. The mean duration from index surgery to removal/revision was 40.1 months (range: 3 days-222 months). In all cases, removal/revision surgery was completed without complication. The most common reason for removal was severe osteolysis, often involving C. acnes infection, and was primarily associated with one implant type. TDR removal and fusion were performed for subsidence, device migration, treatment of symptoms arising from posterior anatomy (facet joints, etc.), approach-related complications and pain. TDR replacement was feasible for hypermobility, metal allergy, implant locked in kyphosis, and oversized implant use. In one case of TDR malpositioning, the device was successfully revised into appropriate position. CONCLUSION: After cervical TDR failure, replacing a TDR with another implant can be feasible. Reasons for revision or removal after cervical TDR surgery include biomechanical failure, implant migration, surgeon or technical error, or biological reasons. The type of failure can help the surgeon create a strategy to address these complications.

Heterotopic ossification, osteolysis and implant failure following cervical total disc replacement with the M6-C™ artificial disc.

INTRODUCTION: A recent study reported a 34% mid-term revision rate after M6-C™ cervical total disc replacement (CTDR) for wear-related osteolysis. Here, we aim to investigate the prevalence, risk factors, and radiographic characteristics of periprosthetic bony changes and implant failure of the M6-C™ artificial disc. METHODS: We retrospectively analysed radiographic (conventional X-ray, CT scan) and clinical outcomes (EQ-5D-5L, Neck Disability Index (NDI), and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for neck and arm pain) data collected during routine follow-up of patients who underwent CTDR with the M6-C™ between 2011 and 2015. RESULTS: In total, 85 patients underwent CTDR with the M6-C™. Follow-up data were available for 43 patients (54% female, mean age 44 years) with 50 implants and a mean follow-up of 8.1 years (6.5-11 years). Implant failure with the presence of severe osteolysis was identified in 5 (12%) patients who were all male (p = 0.016) and implanted at the C5/6 level (p = 0.11). All failed implants required revision surgery. The overall prevalence of osteolysis was 44% (22/50 implants) and 34% (17/50 implants) for significant heterotopic ossification. Patients with high-grade osteolysis showed higher VAS arm pain (p = 0.05) and lower EQ-5D-VAS health VAS (p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: We report a lower reoperation rate for failed M6-C™ implants than previously published, but confirmed that osteolysis and heterotopic ossification are common following CTDR with the M6-C™ and may be asymptomatic. Therefore, we strongly recommend ongoing clinical and radiographic monitoring after CTDR with the M6-C™, particularly for male patients implanted at the C5/6 level.

Adjacent segment degeneration after single- and double-level cervical total disc replacement: a cohort with an over 12-year follow-up.

PURPOSE: To characterize the change of adjacent segment degeneration (ASD) after cervical total disc replacement (CTDR) with more than 12-year follow-up, and identify the risk factors for ASD. METHOD: This process included 75 patients underwent CTDR from February 2004 to December 2012, with the follow-up of 151.9 ± 36.0 (m). The artificial disc included ProDisc-C, Prestige-LP and Mobi-C. ASD was followed up at 1 week, 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, 5 years, 10 years after CTDR and at the endpoint of June 2022. The radiographic measurements were cervical mobility, intervertebral disc height (IDH), cervical lordosis and balance status. The complications were implant migration, subsidence and heterotopic ossification (HO). RESULTS: Cervical mobility in adjacent segments, IDH and lordosis showed no statistical differences between ASD and NASD group. Balance status, subsidence and migration showed no relationship with ASD. Postoperative ASD increased at 6 m and especially between 6 m to 2y. There was no difference between the incidence of upper ASD and lower ASD all the time and few ASD-related reoperation. The majority of adjacent segments were C4/5 (33.6%) and C6/7 (34.2%), and ASD of C5/6 had the highest incidence (61.5%). Cox regression showed ASD was not related to the types of prosthesis or operated numbers. Generalized estimating equations (GEE) analysis showed severe HO had a higher (2.68 times) probability to suffer from ASD. CONCLUSIONS: After over 12-year follow-up of CTDR, the occurrence of ASD and HO had temporal synchronization. ASD was not merely a natural progression but with the pathological process such as HO.

The influence of preoperative 12-item veterans rand physical component scores on outcomes following cervical disc replacement.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the influence of preoperative VR-12 physical component scores (PCS) on outcomes following cervical disc replacement (CDR). METHODS: Patients undergoing elective CDR were retrospectively identified. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of interest included VR-12 PCS/VR-12 Mental Component Score (MCS)/9-Item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9)/Short Form-12 (SF-12) PCS and MCS/Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System-Physical Function (PROMIS-PF)/Visual Analog Scale-Neck Pain (VAS-NP)/VAS-Arm Pain (VAS-AP)/Neck Disability Index (NDI). Baseline up to two-year postoperative scores were obtained (average follow-up: 9.2 ± 6.8months). Two cohorts were created: VR-12 PCS < 35 or VR-12 PCS ≥ 35. Improvements in scores from baseline to six weeks postoperatively and to final follow-up were calculated. Changes in scores were compared to previously reported thresholds to determine rates of minimum clinically important difference (MCID). RESULTS: Of 127 patients, 64 were in the worse VR-12 PCS group. Patients with better VR-12 PCS were more likely to have private insurance (p = 0.034). When accounting for insurance differences, the worse VR-12 PCS group reported inferior NDI/VAS-NP/PHQ-9/PROMIS-PF/VR-12 PCS/SF-12 PCS at six weeks and final follow-up (p ≤ 0.015, all). The worse VR-12 PCS group reported greater improvements in VAS-AP and VR-12 PCS by six weeks and in NDI/VR-12 MCS/VR-12 PCS/SF-12 PCS by final follow-up (p ≤ 0.026, all). Patients with worse VR-12 PCS reported greater MCID achievement for VR-12 MCS and SF-12 PCS (p ≤ 0.034, both). CONCLUSION: Following surgery, patients with worse VR-12 PCS report greater improvements in PROs, highlighting the increased relative impact of surgery for patients with worse baseline physical function. These findings can be used to optimize patient experience perioperatively and inform postoperative expectations.

Artificial intelligence in predicting postoperative heterotopic ossification following anterior cervical disc replacement.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to develop and validate a machine learning (ML) model to predict high-grade heterotopic ossification (HO) following Anterior cervical disc replacement (ACDR). METHODS: Retrospective review of prospectively collected data of patients undergoing ACDR or hybrid surgery (HS) at a quaternary referral medical center was performed. Patients diagnosed as C3-7 single- or multi-level cervical disc degeneration disease with > 2 years of follow-up and complete pre- and postoperative radiological imaging were included. An ML-based algorithm was developed to predict high grade HO based on perioperative demographic, clinical, and radiographic parameters. Furthermore, model performance was evaluated according to discrimination and overall performance. RESULTS: In total, 339 ACDR segments were included (61.65% female, mean age 45.65 ± 8.03 years). Over 45.65 ± 8.03 months of follow-up, 48 (14.16%) segments developed high grade HO. The model demonstrated good discrimination and overall performance according to precision (High grade HO: 0.71 ± 0.01, none-low grade HO: 0.85 ± 0.02), recall (High grade HO: 0.68 ± 0.03, none-low grade HO: 0.87 ± 0.01), F1-score (High grade HO: 0.69 ± 0.02, none-low grade HO: 0.86 ± 0.01), and AUC (0.78 ± 0.08), with lower prosthesis­endplate depth ratio, higher height change, male, and lower postoperative-shell ROM identified as the most important predictive features. CONCLUSION: Through an ML approach, the model identified risk factors and predicted development of high grade HO following ACDR with good discrimination and overall performance. By addressing the shortcomings of traditional statistics and adopting a new logical approach, ML techniques can support discovery, clinical decision-making, and intraoperative techniques better.

Clinical management of bone loss in cervical total disc arthroplasty: literature review and treatment recommendations.

PURPOSE: Cervical total disc replacement (cTDR) has been established as an alternative treatment for degenerative cervical radiculopathy and myelopathy. While the rate of complications for cTDR is reasonably low, recent studies have focused on bone loss after cTDR. The purpose of this work is to develop a clinical management plan for cTDR patients with evidence of bone loss. To guide our recommendations, we undertook a review of the literature and aimed to determine: (1) how bone loss was identified/imaged, (2) whether pre- or intraoperative assessments of infection or histology were performed, and (3) what decision-making and revision strategies were employed. METHODS: We performed a search of the literature according to PRISMA guidelines. Included studies reported the clinical performance of cTDR and identified instances of cervical bone loss. RESULTS: Eleven case studies and 20 cohort studies were reviewed, representing 2073 patients with 821 reported cases of bone loss. Bone loss was typically identified on radiographs during routine follow-up or by computed tomography (CT) for patients presenting with symptoms. Assessments of infection as well as histological and/or explant assessment were sporadically reported. Across all reviewed studies, multiple mechanisms of bone loss were suspected, and severity and progression varied greatly. Many patients were reportedly asymptomatic, but others experienced symptoms like progressive pain and paresthesia. CONCLUSION: Our findings demonstrate a critical gap in the literature regarding the optimal management of patients with bone loss following cTDR, and treatment recommendations based on our review are impractical given the limited amount and quality evidence available. However, based on the authors' extensive clinical experience, close follow-up of specific radiographic observations and serial radiographs to assess the progression/severity of bone loss and implant changes are recommended. CT findings can be used for clinical decision-making and further follow-up care. The pattern and rate of progression of bone loss, in concert with patient symptomatology, should determine whether non-operative or surgical intervention is indicated. Future studies involving implant retrieval, histopathological, and microbiological analysis for patients undergoing cTDR revision for bone loss are needed.

Could the different surgical goals of fusion and non-fusion also be achieved in combination within the same patient? Clinical and radiological outcome of hybrid cervical spine surgery.

PURPOSE: Hybrid cervical spine surgery (HS) is a novel surgical strategy wherein an artificial disc replacement is done with a cervical fusion nearby with a stand-alone titanium cage to combine the advantages in both procedures. The aim of this study was to evaluate interactions of these devices within the same patient, and to analyze, if the different goal of each implant is accomplished. METHODS: Thirty-six patients were treated surgically within a non-randomized retrospective study framework with HS. Patients were examined preoperatively followed by clinical and radiological examination at least one year postoperative. Clinical outcome was detected with NDI, VAS arm/neck, pain self-assessment questionnaires and subjective patient satisfaction. Radiological assessments included RoM, segmental lordosis, cervical lordosis of C2-C7, subsidence, ap-migration and heterotopic ossifications (HO) at the cTDR levels. RESULTS: Statistically significant improvement of all clinical scores was observed (NDI 37.5 to 5.76; VASarm 6.41 to 0.69; VASneck 6.78 to 1.48). Adequate RoM was achieved at cTDR levels. RoM in the ACDF levels was reduced statistically significant (p < 0.001), and solid fusion (> 2°) was achieved in all evaluated fusion level. Global lordosis (C2-C7) increased statistically significant (2.4° to 8.1°). Subsidence and HO at the cTDR levels did not occur. CONCLUSIONS: HS results in preservation of the segmental motion in the cTDR and fast and solid fusion in the cage cohort simultaneously. Patient safety was proven. In carefully selected cases, HS is a safe and viable treatment option by choosing the right "philosophy" level per level.

Long-term results and surgical strategy development for degenerative disease treatment in athletes: a retrospective single-center study.

PURPOSE: To analyze of the results of spine surgical treatment of athletes with lumbar degenerative disease and development of a surgical strategy based on the preoperative symptoms and radiological changes in the lumbar spine. METHODS: For 114 athletes with lumbar degenerative disease were included in the present study. Four independent groups were studied: (1) microsurgical/endoscopic discectomy (n = 35); (2) PRP therapy in facet joints (n = 41); (3) total disc replacement (n = 11); (4) lumbar interbody fusion (n = 27). We evaluated postoperative clinical outcomes and preoperative radiological results. The average postoperative follow-up was 5 (3;6), 3.5 (3;5), 3 (2;4) and 4 (3;5) years, respectively. The analysis included an assessment of clinical outcomes (initial clinical symptoms, chronic pain syndrome level according to the VAS, quality of life according to the SF-36 questionnaire, degree of tolerance to physical activity according to the subjective Borg Rating of Perceived Exertion Scale) and radiological data (Dynamic Slip, Dynamic Segmental Angle, degenerative changes in the facet joint according to the Fujiwara classification and disc according to the Pfirrmann classification; changes in the diffusion coefficient using diffusion-weighted MRI). RESULTS: The median and 25-75% quartiles timing of return to sports were 12.6 (10.2;14.1), 2.8 (2.4;3.7), 9 (6;12), and 14 (9;17) weeks, respectively. We examined the type of surgical treatment utilized, as well as the preoperative clinical symptoms, severity of degenerative changes in the intervertebral disc and facet joint, the timing of return to sports, the level of pain syndrome, the quality of life according to SF-36, and the degree of tolerance to physical activity. We then developed a surgical strategy based on individual preoperative neurological function and lumbar morphological changes. CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective study, we report clinical results of four treatment options of lumbar spine degenerative disease in athletes. The use of developed patient selection criteria for the analyzed surgical techniques is aimed at minimizing return-to-play times.

Three dimensional-printed artificial disc replacement for single-level cervical spondylosis: a cohort study.

PURPOSE: To compare the clinical efficacy of 3D-printed artificial discs with that of ACDF for treating cervical spondylosis. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of 73 patients with single-level cervical spondylosis who met the inclusion criteria between January 2020 and December 2022 at XX Hospital. The patients were divided: 38 patients in the ACDF group and 35 patients in the CADR group. Patient general information, including operation time and intraoperative blood loss, was collected. The clinical effect of the combination therapy was evaluated by the VAS, JOA, and NDI. The radiological effect was evaluated using the ROM test. Ethics No. 201,606,009. RESULTS: The average follow-up times in the ACDF and CADR groups were 28.24 ± 4.65 and 29.11 ± 5.06 months, respectively (P = 0.443). Clinical symptoms (evaluated by VAS, NDI, and JOA) are significantly improved in both the ACDF and CADR groups with similar efficacy. The preoperative ROM of the ACDF group was 40.03 ± 8.79, while that of the CADR group was 42.11 ± 7.98 (P = 0.293). However, the postoperative ROM in the ACDF group was 35.29 ± 7.23, which was lower than that in the CADR group (40.43 ± 6.98) (P = 0.003). Furthermore, only one patient in the ACDF group experienced mild dysphagia after surgery, and the patient recovered within three days. ASD occurred in nine patients in the ACDF group and in two patients in the CADR group (Χ²=4.597, P = 0.032). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with ACDF, 3D-printed artificial discs for treating single-level cervical spondylosis have proven to be clinically effective; it associated with less blood loss and a lower incidence of ASD, and maintain a better cervical ROM.

Cervical disc arthroplasty with the Baguera C prosthesis: clinical and radiological results of a 10-year follow-up study.

PURPOSE: We evaluated the long-term safety, mobility and complications of cervical total disc arthroplasty with the Baguera®C prosthesis over 10 years. METHODS: We included 91 patients treated by arthroplasty for cervical degenerative disc disease. A total of 113 prostheses were implanted (50 one-level, 44 two-level and 19 hybrid constructs). They were assessed for complications, clinically, with NDI and SF-12 questionnaires and by independent radiologists for ROM, HO, disc height and adjacent level degeneration. RESULTS: No spontaneous migration, loss of fixation, subsidence, vascular complication or dislocation were observed. The reoperation rate was 1%. About 82.7% of the patients were pain free. About 9.9% were taking occasional grade I painkillers. Motricity and sensitivity were preserved in 98.8% and 96.3%. The NDI showed an average functional disability of 17.58%, 26% lower than preoperatively. The SF-12 scores were close to normal health. The average ROM at the treated level was 7.4°. Motion was preserved in 86.6%. Lack of motion was observed in 13.4%. Grades II and III H0 were present in 53.7% and 31.7%, respectively, Grade IV was present in 13.4%. Motion was preserved in 100% of the grades 0-III. The preoperative adjacent level disc height of 4.3 mm remained stable during all the follow-ups at 4.4 mm and 4.2 mm, respectively, at 5 and 10 years. CONCLUSIONS: After 10 years, cervical arthroplasty with the Baguera®C prosthesis presents excellent safety and functional results and low complications. Motion was preserved in 86.6%, with a 7.4° ROM. Although common, HO did not hinder motion. Adjacent disc height preservation confirms some adjacent level degeneration protection.

Impact of previous lumbar spine surgery on the outcome of lumbar total disc replacement: analysis of prospective 5-year follow-up study data.

PURPOSE: It is sometimes anticipated that patients with prior spine surgery will have a compromised outcome from future procedures. The purpose of this study was to compare TDR outcomes in patients with prior lumbar spine surgery to those with no previous surgery. METHODS: Post hoc analysis was performed on 5-year follow-up data collected prospectively in the multi-centre FDA-regulated trial for the activL® Artificial Disc which involved 376 patients treated for single-level symptomatic disc degeneration. Clinical outcome measures included the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), visual analog scales (VAS) assessing back and leg pain, SF-36, adverse events, and re-operations. Radiographic outcomes included flexion/extension range of motion (ROM) and translation of the operated segment. Patients were divided into two groups: Prior Lumbar Surgery (PLS, n = 92) and No Prior Lumbar Surgery (NPLS, n = 284). RESULTS: Baseline demographics were similar in the two groups. ODI, VAS, and SF-36 Physical Component Scale scores improved significantly (p < 0.05) from baseline in both groups with improvements maintained through 5-year post-TDR with no significant differences between groups. There were no statistically significant differences in rates of serious device-related events, procedure-related events, or re-operations. While ROM was significantly less prior to TDR surgery in the PLS group, there was no significant difference in ROM at post-operative points. CONCLUSION: Prior lumbar spine surgery was not associated with compromised outcomes following TDR. These results are in line with reports from earlier studies with shorter follow-up, finding that non-destabilizing prior surgery is not a contra-indication for TDR provided that selection criteria are met. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE I: Diagnostic: individual cross-sectional studies with the consistently applied reference standard and blinding.

Trends in use, outcomes, and revision procedures of anterior cervical disc replacement in the United States: a premiere database analysis from 2006-2019.

PURPOSE: We sought to characterize trends in demographics, comorbidities, and postoperative complications among patients undergoing primary and revision cervical disc replacement (pCDR/rCDR) procedures. METHODS: In this retrospective database study, the Premier Healthcare database was queried from 2006 to 2019. Annual proportions or medians were calculated for patient and hospital characteristics, comorbidities, and postoperative complications associated with CDR surgery. Trends were assessed using linear regression analyses with year of service as the sole predictor. RESULTS: A total of 16,178 pCDR and 758 rCDR cases were identified, with a median (IQR) age of 46 (39; 53) and 51 (43; 60) years among patients, respectively. The annual number of both procedures increased between 2006 and 2019, from 135 to 2220 for pCDR (p < 0.001), and from 17 to 49 for rCDR procedures (p < 0.001), with radiculopathy being the main indication for surgery in both groups. Mechanical failure was identified as a major indication for rCDR procedures with an increase over time (p = 0.002). Baseline patient comorbidity burden (p = 0.045) and complication rates (p < 0.001) showed an increase. For both procedures, an increase in outpatient surgeries and procedures performed in rural hospitals was seen (pCDR: p = 0.045; p = 0.006; rCDR: p = 0.028; p = 0.034). CONCLUSION: PCDR and rCDR procedures significantly increased from 2006 to 2019. At the same time, comorbidity burden and complication rates increased, while procedures were more often performed in an outpatient and rural setting. The identification of these trends can help guide future practice and lead to further areas of research.

Lumbar arthroplasty for treatment of primary or recurrent lumbar disc herniation.

PURPOSE: Microdiscectomy is the current gold standard surgical treatment for primary lumbar disc herniations that fail non-surgical measures. Herniated nucleus pulposus is the manifestation of underlying discopathy that remains unaddressed with microdiscectomy. Therefore, risk remains of recurrent disc herniation, progression of the degenerative cascade, and on-going discogenic pain. Lumbar arthroplasty allows for complete discectomy, complete direct and indirect decompression of neural elements, restoration of alignment, restoration of foraminal height, and preservation of motion. In addition, arthroplasty avoids disruption of posterior elements and musculoligamentous stabilizers. The purpose of this study is to describe the feasibility of the use of lumbar arthroplasty in the treatment of patients with primary or recurrent disc herniations. In addition, we describe the clinical and peri-operative outcomes associated with this technique. METHODS: All patients that underwent lumbar arthroplasty by a single surgeon at a single institution from 2015 to 2020 were reviewed. All patients with radiculopathy and pre-operative imaging demonstrating disc herniation that received lumbar arthroplasty were included in the study. In general, these patients were those with large disc herniations, advanced degenerative disc disease, and a clinical component of axial back pain. Patient-reported outcomes of VAS back, VAS leg, and ODI pre-operatively, at three months, one year, and at last follow-up were collected. Reoperation rate, patient satisfaction, and return to work were documented at last follow-up. RESULTS: Twenty-four patients underwent lumbar arthroplasty during the study period. Twenty-two (91.6%) patients underwent lumbar total disc replacement (LTDR) for a primary disc herniation. Two patients (8.3%) underwent LTDR for a recurrent disc herniation after prior microdiscectomy. The mean age was 40 years. The mean pre-operative VAS leg and back pain were 9.2 and 8.9, respectively. The mean pre-operative ODI was 22.3. Mean VAS back and leg pain was 1.2 and 0.5 at three months post-operative. The mean VAS back and leg pain was 1.3 and 0.6 at one year post-operative. The mean ODI was 3.0 at one year post-operative. One patient (4.2%) underwent re-operation for migrated arthroplasty device which required repositioning. At last follow-up, 92% of patients were satisfied with their outcome and would undergo the same treatment again. The mean time for return-to-work was 4.8 weeks. After returning to work, 89% of patients required no further leave of absence for recurrent back or leg pain at last follow-up. Forty-four percent of patients were pain free at last follow-up. CONCLUSION: Most patients with lumbar disc herniations can avoid surgical intervention altogether. Of those that require surgical treatment, microdiscectomy may be appropriate for certain patients with preserved disc height and extruded fragments. In a subset of patients with lumbar disc herniation that require surgical treatment, lumbar total disc replacement is an effective option by performing complete discectomy, restoring disc height, restoring alignment, and preserving motion. The restoration of physiologic alignment and motion may result in durable outcomes for these patients. Longer follow-up and comparative and prospective trials are needed to determine how the outcomes of microdiscectomy may differ from lumbar total disc replacement in the treatment of primary or recurrent disc herniation.

Bionate® nucleus disc replacement: bench testing comparing two different designs.

BACKGROUND: Intervertebral disc nucleus degeneration initiates a degenerative cascade and can induce chronic low back pain. Nucleus replacement aims to replace the nucleus while the annulus is still intact. Over time, several designs have been introduced, but the definitive solution continues to be elusive. Therefore, we aimed to create a new nucleus replacement that replicates intact intervertebral disc biomechanics, and thus has the potential for clinical applications. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two implants with an outer ring and one (D2) with an additional midline strut were compared. Static and fatigue tests were performed with an INSTRON 8874 following the American Society for Testing and Materials F2267-04, F2346-05, 2077-03, D2990-01, and WK4863. Implant stiffness was analyzed at 0-300 N, 500-2000 N, and 2000-6000 N and implant compression at 300 N, 1000 N, 2000 N, and 6000 N. Wear tests were performed following ISO 18192-1:2008 and 18192-2:2010. GNU Octave software was used to calculate movement angles and parameters. The statistical analysis package R was used with the Deducer user interface. Statistically significant differences between the two designs were analyzed with ANOVA, followed by a post hoc analysis. RESULTS: D1 had better behavior in unconfined compression tests, while D2 showed a "jump." D2 deformed 1 mm more than D1. Sterilized implants were more rigid and deformed less. Both designs showed similar behavior under confined compression and when adding shear. A silicone annulus minimized differences between the designs. Wear under compression fatigue was negligible for D1 but permanent for D2. D1 suffered permanent height deformation but kept its width. D2 suffered less height loss than D1 but underwent a permanent width deformation. Both designs showed excellent responses to compression fatigue with no breaks, cracks, or delamination. At 10 million cycles, D2 showed 3-times higher wear than D1. D1 had better and more homogeneous behavior, and its wear was relatively low. It showed good mechanical endurance under dynamic loading conditions, with excellent response to axial compression fatigue loading without functional failure after long-term testing. CONCLUSION: D1 performed better than D2. Further studies in cadaveric specimens, and eventually in a clinical setting, are recommended. Level of evidence 2c.

The lexicon for periprosthetic bone loss versus osteolysis after cervical disc arthroplasty: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Periprosthetic bone loss is a common observation following arthroplasty. Recognizing and understanding the nature of bone loss is vital as it determines the subsequent performance of the device and the overall outcome. Despite its significance, the term "bone loss" is often misused to describe inflammatory osteolysis, a complication with vastly different clinical outcomes and treatment plans. Therefore, the goal of this review was to report major findings related to vertebral radiographic bone changes around cervical disc replacements, mitigate discrepancies in clinical reports by introducing uniform terminology to the field, and establish a precedence that can be used to identify the important nuances between these distinct complications. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was conducted following PRISMA guidelines, using the keywords "cervical," "disc replacement," "osteolysis," "bone loss," "radiograph," and "complications." A total of 23 articles met the inclusion criteria with the majority being retrospective or case reports. RESULTS: Fourteen studies reported periprosthetic osteolysis in a total of 46 patients with onset ranging from 15-96 months after the index procedure. Reported causes included: metal hypersensitivity, infection, mechanical failure, and wear debris. Osteolysis was generally progressive and led to reoperation. Nine articles reported non-inflammatory bone loss in 527 patients (52.5%), typically within 3-6 months following implantation. The reported causes included: micromotion, stress shielding, and interrupted blood supply. With one exception, bone loss was reported to be non-progressive and had no effect on clinical outcome measures. CONCLUSIONS: Non-progressive, early onset bone loss is a common finding after CDA and typically does not affect the reported short-term pain scores or lead to early revision. By contrast, osteolysis was less common, presenting more than a year post-operative and often accompanied by additional complications, leading to revision surgery. A greater understanding of the clinical significance is limited by the lack of long-term studies, inconsistent terminology, and infrequent use of histology and explant analyses. Uniform reporting and adoption of consistent terminology can mitigate some of these limitations. Executing these actionable items is critical to assess device performance and the risk of revision. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: Diagnostic: individual cross-sectional studies with consistently applied reference standard and blinding.

In which cases do surgeons specializing in total disc replacement perform fusion in patients with symptomatic lumbar disc degeneration?

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to investigate reasons and their frequency for why spine surgeons subspecializing in total disc replacement (TDR) performed lumbar fusion rather than TDR. METHODS: The study was based on a consecutive series of 515 patients undergoing lumbar TDR or fusion during a 5-year period by three surgeons specializing in TDR. For each fusion patient, the reason for not performing TDR was recorded. RESULTS: TDR was performed in 65.4% (n = 337) of patients and the remaining 34.6% (n = 178) underwent anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF ± posterior instrumentation). Of the 178 fusion patients, the most common reason for fusion was combined factors related to severe degenerative changes (n = 59, 11.5% of the study population). The second most common reason was > Grade 1 spondylolisthesis (n = 32, 6.2%), followed by insurance non-coverage (n = 24, 4.7%), and osteopenia/osteoporosis (n = 13, 2.5%). Fusion patients were significantly older than TDR patients (52.5 vs. 41.6 years; p < 0.01). There was no significant difference with respect to gender (41.2% female vs. 43.8% female, p > 0.05) or the percentage of patients with single-level surgery (61.2% vs. 56.7%, p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: The most common reason for not performing lumbar TDR was related to anatomic factors that may compromise stability of the operated segment and/or TDR functionality. The older age of fusion patients may be related to these factors. This study found that many patients are appropriate candidates for lumbar TDR. However, even among TDR subspecialists, fusion is preferred when there are factors that cannot be addressed with TDR and/or may compromise implant functionality.

Midterm osteolysis-induced aseptic failure of the M6-C™ cervical total disc replacement secondary to polyethylene wear debris.

BACKGROUND: According to published meta-analyses, cervical total disc replacement (CTDR) seems to be superior to anterior cervical decompression and fusion (ACDF) in most clinical parameters. Despite short-term clinical success of CTDR, there are concerns regarding long-term durability of these prostheses. METHODS: This prospective study involved 382 patients who received standalone CTDR or a hybrid procedure (ACDF/CTDR). A retrospective comparison between different CTDR devices was conducted regarding patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), failure scenarios, and revision surgeries. The M6-C™ Artificial Cervical Disc (Orthofix, Lewisville, Texas) cohort was compared to the other CTDR devices clinically. Etiological reasons for revision, and the surgical technique of the revision was investigated. RESULTS: Fifty-three patients received M6-C CTDR. Eighteen patients (34%) were revised at an average of 67 months postoperatively for wear-induced osteolysis. There were three additional cases of pending revision. The PROMs of the two groups were similar, indicating that the failure mode (wear-induced osteolysis) is often asymptomatic. The demographics of the two groups were also similar, with more women undergoing revision surgery than men. There were three one-level CTDR, four two-level hybrids, seven three-level hybrids, and three four-level hybrids revised anteriorly. Sixteen patients underwent removal of the prosthesis and were treated according to the extent of osteolysis. There were four vertebrectomies, six revisions to ACDF, and six revisions to another CTDR. One patient underwent supplemental fixation using a posterior approach. The other CTDR cohort had an incidence of 3.3% at the equivalent time, and none of these were due to osteolysis or wear-related events. CONCLUSIONS: There is a concerning midterm failure rate related to ultra-high-molecular-weight-polyethylene wear-induced osteolysis in the M6-C. Patients implanted with the M6-C prosthesis should be contacted, informed, and clinically and radiologically assessed.

ProDisc-C versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for the surgical treatment of symptomatic cervical disc disease: two-year outcomes of Asian prospective randomized controlled multicentre study.

PURPOSE: Our study aimed to evaluate non-inferiority of ProDisc-C to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) in terms of clinical outcomes and incidence of adjacent segment disease (ASD) at 24-months post-surgery in Asian patients with symptomatic cervical disc disease (SCDD). METHODS: This multicentre, prospective, randomized controlled trial was initiated after ethics committee approval at nine centres (China/Hong Kong/Korea/Singapore/Taiwan). Patients with single-level SCDD involving C3-C7-vertebral segments were randomized (2:1) into: group-A treated with ProDisc-C and group-B with ACDF. Assessments were conducted at baseline, 6-weeks, 3/6/12/18/24-months post-surgery and annually thereafter till 84-months. Primary endpoint was overall success at 24-months, defined as composite of: (1) ≥ 20% improvement in neck disability index (NDI); (2) maintained/improved neurologic parameters; (3) no implant removal/revision/re-operation at index level; and (4) no adverse/severe/life-threatening events. RESULTS: Of 120 patients (80ProDisc-C,40ACDF), 76 and 37 were treated as per protocol (PP). Overall success (PP) was 76.5% in group-A and 81.8% in group-B at 24-months (p = 0.12), indicating no clear non-inferiority of ProDisc-C to ACDF. Secondary outcomes improved for both groups with no significant inter-group differences. Occurrence of ASD was higher in group-B with no significant between-group differences. Range of motion (ROM) was sustained with ProDisc-C but lost with ACDF at 24-months. CONCLUSION: Cervical TDR with ProDisc-C is feasible, safe, and effective for treatment of SCDD in Asians. No clear non-inferiority was demonstrated between ProDisc-C and ACDF. However, patients treated with ProDisc-C demonstrated significant improvement in NDI, neurologic success, pain scores, and 36-item-short-form survey, along with ROM preservation at 24-months. Enrolment difficulties resulted in inability to achieve pre-planned sample size to prove non-inferiority. Future Asian-focused, large-scale studies are needed to establish unbiased efficacy of ProDisc-C to ACDF.

Effect of facet joint distraction on the functional and radiological outcomes after anterior cervical disc replacement.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to explore: 1) whether the extent of facet joint distraction affects functional outcomes following single-level anterior cervical disc replacement (ACDR) for cervical spondylotic radiculopathy and 2) whether the extent of facet joint distraction correlates with the cervical sagittal parameters. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis on 70 patients who had undergone a single-level ACDR to treat cervical spondylotic radiculopathy between January 2014 and December 2018. Pre- and post-operative lateral cervical spine X-ray radiographs were collected to determine radiographic parameters, including C0-C2 angle, C2-C7 angle, C7 Slope (C7S), T1 Slope (T1S), C2-C7 sagittal vertical axis (SVA), C2-C7 range of motion (ROM), Segmental ROM, disc height (DH) and inter-facet distance (ID). And the extend of facet joint distraction was evaluated by the two indexes: degree of intervertebral distraction (DID) defined and degree of facet joint distraction (DFJD). The visual analog scale (VASneck) and the Neck Disability Index scores (NDI) were adopted to demonstrate functional outcomes. Patients with the functional outcome improvement below the average were set as the positive group in the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis, to find an optimal cut-off value of extent of facet joint distraction. RESULTS: VASneck and NDI scores improved significantly from pre- to post-operation among the entire cohort, and DFJD had a statistically significant negative correlation with ΔVASneck (p < 0.001) and ΔNDI (p < 0.001). According to ROC curve analysis, the cut-off value of DFJD for differing the appropriate and excessive distraction groups was set at 29.16% (sensitivity = 70.73%, specificity = 67.86%). Between these two groups, the ΔT1S, ΔROM, ΔVASneck, and ΔNDI were significantly different (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Single-segment ACDR may improve the functional outcome of patients with cervical spondylotic radiculopathy. However, those whose DFJD was greater than 29.16% had worse VASneck and NDI scores, as well as a lower ΔT1S and a lower ΔROM.