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.

Clinical and radiological outcome 1-year after cervical total disc replacement using the Signus ROTAIO - Prosthesis.

INTRODUCTION: The instantaneous center of rotation (iCOR) of a motion segment has been shown to correlate with its total range of motion (ROM). Importantly, a correlation of the correct placement of cervical total disc replacement (cTDR) to preserve a physiological iCOR has been previously identified. However, changes of these parameters and the corresponding clinical relevance have hardly been analyzed. This study assesses the radiological and clinical correlation of iCOR and ROM following cTDR. MATERIALS/METHODS: A retrospective multi-center observational study was conducted and radiological as well as clinical parameters were evaluated preoperatively and 1 year after cTDR with an unconstrained device. Radiographic parameters including flexion/extension X-rays (flex/ex), ROM, iCOR and the implant position in anterior-posterior direction (IP ap), as well as corresponding clinical parameters [(Neck Disability Index (NDI) and the visual analogue scale (VAS)] were assessed. RESULTS: 57 index segments of 53 patients treated with cTDR were analyzed. Pre- and post-operative ROM showed no significant changes (8.0° vs. 10.9°; p > 0.05). Significant correlations between iCOR and IP (Pearson's R: 0.6; p < 0.01) as well as between ROM and IP ap (Pearson's R: - 0.3; p = 0.04) were identified. NDI and VAS improved significantly (p < 0.01). A significant correlation between NDI and IP ap after 12 months (Pearson's R: - 0.39; p < 0.01) was found. CONCLUSION: Implantation of the tested prosthesis maintains the ROM and results in a physiological iCOR. The exact position of the device correlates with the clinical outcome and emphasize the importance of implant design and precise implant positioning.

Does neck pain as chief complaint influence the outcome of cervical total disc replacement?

PURPOSE: We investigated whether outcomes after cervical total disc replacement (cTDR) are influenced by preoperative neck pain as the chief complaint. METHODS: This was a retrospective study using data in our local spine surgery outcomes database, linked to EUROSPINE Spine Tango Registry. Patients completed questionnaires at baseline enquiring about the "chief complaint" [neck pain (NP), arm/shoulder pain (AP) or neurological deficits (ND)] and including the Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI); these were completed again at 24 months postoperatively, along with a rating of "global treatment outcome" (on a five-point scale, later dichotomized as "good" or "poor"). Differences in outcomes between the groups were examined using ANOVA. Multivariable regression analysis examined the effect of the chief pain location on 24-month outcomes, controlling for age, gender, comorbidity, baseline pain and COMI scores. RESULTS: One hundred and fifty-nine consecutive patients were included, with a chief complaint of NP in 31%, AP in 38% and ND in 31%. The chief complaint groups did not differ in relation to their baseline COMI scores or their reductions in score from before surgery to 24 months after surgery (reduction: NP group, 4.4 ± 2.9 points; AP group, 4.7 ± 2.7; ND group, 4.3 ± 2.9; p = 0.78). Similarly, the percentage of patients reporting a "good global treatment outcome" at 24 months postoperatively did not differ between the groups (NP, 79%; AP, 77%; ND, 85%; p = 0.64). The findings were consistent when controlling for possible confounders in multiple regression. CONCLUSIONS: Having neck pain as opposed to arm pain or neurological deficits as preoperative chief complaint had no significant impact on clinical outcome after cTDR. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Cervical Total Disc Replacement: Food and Drug Administration-Approved Devices.

The first US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for cervical total disc replacement (CTDR) was issued in 2007. Since then, 8 more artificial discs have been granted FDA approval for single-level CTDR. Two of these have also been approved for 2-level CTDR. All devices are indicated for levels C3 to C7 for symptomatic patients with radiculopathy or myelopathy caused by disc herniation or spondylosis unresponsive to conservative management. Trials have shown noninferiority of CTDR compared with anterior cervical decompression and fusion in their overall success. Hybrid surgery and CTDR of 3 or more levels are not FDA approved.

Cervical Spine Surgery: Arthroplasty Versus Fusion Versus Posterior Foraminotomy.

Three procedures dominate surgical management of degenerative cervical spine disorders: posterior cervical laminoforaminotomy (PCF), cervical total disc replacement (CTDR), and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). Together they provide a 360° approach to degenerative cervical spine disease that help surgeons reach the correct treatment decisions. ACDF, CTDR, and PCF are effective procedures for the treatment of a broad range of degenerative cervical disorders. Minimally invasive technique, outpatient setting, motion preservation, and adjacent segment disease should be taken into consideration in the surgical plan. All well-rounded spine surgeons should be skilled at both anterior and posterior approaches to treat radiculopathy.

Contributions and achievements on schistosomiasis control and elimination in China by NIPD-CTDR.

Being a zoonotic parasitic disease, schistosomiasis was widely spread in 12 provinces of Southern China in the 1950s, severly harming human health and hindering economic development. The National Institute of Parasitic Diseases at the Chinese Center for Diseases Control and Prevention, and Chinese Center for Tropical Diseases Research (NIPD-CTDR), as the only professional institution focussing on parasitic diseases at the national level, has played an important role in schistosomiasis control in the country. In this article, we look back at the changes of schistosomiasis endemicity and the contribution of NIPD-CTDR to the national schistosomiasis control programme. We review NIPD-CTDR's activities, including field investigations, design of control strategies and measures, development of diagnostics and drugs, surveillance-response of endemic situation, and monitoring & evaluation of the programme. The NIPD-CTDR has mastered the transmission status of schistosomiasis, mapped the snail distribution, and explored strategies and measures suitable for different types of endemic areas in China. With a good understanding of the life cycle of Schistosoma japonicum and transmission patterns of the disease, advanced research carried out in the NIPD-CTDR based on genomics and modern technology has made it possible to explore highly efficient and soft therapeutic drugs and molluscicides, making it possible to develop new diagnostic tools and produce vaccine candidates. In the field, epidemiological studies, updated strategies and targeted intervention measures developed by scientists from the NIPD-CTDR have contributed significantly to the national schistosomiasis control programme. This all adds up to a strong foundation for eliminating schistosomiasis in China in the near future, and recommendations have been put forward how to reach this goal.

Comparison of M6-C and Mobi-C cervical total disc replacement for cervical degenerative disc disease in adults.

BACKGROUND: Cervical total disc replacement (CTDR) is complicated by adjacent segment degeneration (ASD). Since non-physiological spine kinematics after CTDR was postulated to cause ASD, M6-C prosthesis has been developed to better replicate the natural kinematics of the intervertebral disc. This retrospective cohort study aims to compare the short-term outcomes between patients receiving either the M6-C or Mobi-C prostheses. METHODS: Patients who had refractory radiculopathy and/or myelopathy secondary to cervical degenerative disc disease and underwent CTDR between March 2004 and April 2017 were included. All CTDRs were performed by a single surgeon at a single institution. Self-reported clinical outcomes and radiological parameters were evaluated at baseline and final follow-up between March 2004 and April 2018. RESULTS: Sixty-two patients with greater than 1-year follow-up or who developed HO within 12 months of surgery, were included in the study. The mean radiological follow-up was 29.0 months (3-84 months), which includes 7 patients with less than 12 months follow-up who also developed HO. The changes in clinical and radiological measures were comparable between M6-C and Mobi-C prostheses. Thirty-seven out of 52 spinal segments (71.2%) and 10 out of 16 spinal segments (62.5%) developed HO in M6-C and Mobi-C group respectively. There was no significant difference in the rate of HO between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: No short-term differences were found in clinical or radiological outcomes between patients who received either the M6-C or Mobi-C prosthesis. Further randomized trials with a long-term follow-up period are warranted to determine the safety and efficacy of M6-C prosthesis.

Safety and efficacy of cervical disc arthroplasty in preventing the adjacent segment disease: a meta-analysis of mid- to long-term outcomes in prospective, randomized, controlled multicenter studies.

OBJECTIVES: Cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) has become an alternative treatment for cervical radiculopathy and myelopathy. This technique preserves appropriate motion at both the index and adjacent disc levels and consequently may prevent adjacent segment degeneration (ASD). The authors performed a meta-analysis to compare the safety and efficacy of CDA to those of the gold standard, anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). Both surgical and clinical parameters were employed to verify the hypothesis that CDA can reduce the risk of ASD. METHODS: The meta-analysis comprised high-quality randomized controlled trials that compared CDA and ACDF treatments of cervical degenerative disc disease. Included papers reported data for at least one of the following outcomes: 1) surgical parameters, 2) questionnaire clinical indices (pre- and postoperative values), and 3) complication rates at 24 months; in addition, for ASD we analyzed 60 month or longer follow-ups. We used mean differences (MDs) or ORs to compare treatment effects between CDA and ACDF. RESULTS: Twenty studies with 3,656 patients (2,140 with CDA and 1,516 with ACDF) met the inclusion criteria. CDA surgery, with mean duration longer than that of ACDF, was associated with higher blood loss. Visual analog scale neck pain score was significantly smaller for CDA (mean difference =-2.30, 95% CI [-3.72; -0.87], P=0.002). The frequency of dysphagia/dysphonia (OR =0.69, 95% CI [0.49; 0.98], P=0.04) as well as the long-term ASD rate for CDA was significantly smaller (OR =0.33, 95% CI [0.21; 0.50], P<0.0001). CONCLUSION: A significantly lower probability of ASD reoperations in the CDA cohort after a 60-month or longer follow-up was the most important finding of this study. Despite the moderate quality of this evidence, the pooled data corroborated for the very first time that CDA was efficacious in preventing ASD.

Two-level cervical disc arthroplasty versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: 10-year outcomes of a prospective, randomized investigational device exemption clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: The authors assessed the 10-year clinical safety and effectiveness of cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) to treat degenerative cervical spine disease at 2 adjacent levels compared to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). METHODS: A prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter FDA-approved clinical trial was conducted comparing the low-profile titanium ceramic composite-based Prestige LP Cervical Disc (n = 209) at two levels with ACDF (n = 188). Ten-year follow-up data from a postapproval study were available on 148 CDA and 118 ACDF patients and are reported here. Clinical and radiographic evaluations were completed preoperatively, intraoperatively, and at regular postoperative follow-up intervals for up to 10 years. The primary endpoint was overall success, a composite variable that included key safety and efficacy considerations. Ten-year follow-up rates were 86.0% for CDA and 84.9% for ACDF. RESULTS: From 2 to 10 years, CDA demonstrated statistical superiority over ACDF for overall success, with rates at 10 years of 80.4% versus 62.2%, respectively (posterior probability of superiority [PPS] = 99.9%). Neck Disability Index (NDI) success was also superior, with rates at 10 years of 88.4% versus 76.5% (PPS = 99.5%), as was neurological success (92.6% vs 86.1%; PPS = 95.6%). Improvements from preoperative results in NDI and neck pain scores were consistently statistically superior for CDA compared to ACDF. All other study effectiveness measures were at least noninferior for CDA compared to ACDF through the 10-year follow-up period, including disc height. Mean angular ranges of motion at treated levels were maintained in the CDA group for up to 10 years. The rates of grade IV heterotopic ossification (HO) at the superior and inferior levels were 8.2% and 10.3%, respectively. The rate of severe HO (grade III or IV) did not increase significantly from 7 years (42.4%) to 10 years (39.0%). The CDA group had fewer serious (grade 3-4) implant-related or implant/surgical procedure-related adverse events (3.8% vs 8.1%; posterior mean 95% Bayesian credible interval [BCI] of the log hazard ratio [LHR] -0.92 [-1.88, -0.01]). The CDA group also had statistically fewer secondary surgical procedures at the index levels (4.7%) than the ACDF group (17.6%) (LHR [95% BCI] -1.39 [-2.15, -0.61]) as well as at adjacent levels (9.0% vs 17.9%). CONCLUSIONS: The Prestige LP Cervical Disc, implanted at two adjacent levels, maintains improved clinical outcomes and segmental motion 10 years after surgery and is a safe and effective alternative to fusion.Clinical trial registration no.: NCT00637156 (clinicaltrials.gov).

Five-year clinical results of cervical total disc replacement compared with anterior discectomy and fusion for treatment of 2-level symptomatic degenerative disc disease: a prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter investigational device exemption clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to report the outcome of a study of 2-level cervical total disc replacement (Mobi-C) versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). Although the long-term outcome of single-level disc replacement has been extensively described, there have not been previous reports of the 5-year outcome of 2-level cervical disc replacement. METHODS This study reports the 5-year results of a prospective, randomized US FDA investigational device exemption (IDE) study conducted at 24 centers in patients with 2-level, contiguous, cervical spondylosis. Clinical outcomes at up to 60 months were evaluated, including validated outcome measures, incidence of reoperation, and adverse events. The complete study data and methodology were critically reviewed by 3 independent surgeon authors without affiliation with the IDE study or financial or institutional bias toward the study sponsor. RESULTS A total of 225 patients received the Mobi-C cervical total disc replacement device and 105 patients received ACDF. The Mobi-C and ACDF follow-up rates were 90.7% and 86.7%, respectively (p = 0.39), at 60 months. There was significant improvement in all outcome scores relative to baseline at all time points. The Mobi-C patients had significantly more improvement than ACDF patients in terms of Neck Disability Index score, SF-12 Physical Component Summary, and overall satisfaction with treatment at 60 months. The reoperation rate was significantly lower with Mobi-C (4%) versus ACDF (16%). There were no significant differences in the adverse event rate between groups. CONCLUSIONS Both cervical total disc replacement and ACDF significantly improved general and disease-specific measures compared with baseline. However, there was significantly greater improvement in general and disease-specific outcome measures and a lower rate of reoperation in the 2-level disc replacement patients versus ACDF control patients. Clinical trial registration no. NCT00389597 ( clinicaltrials.gov ).

Four-year results of a prospective single-arm study on 200 semi-constrained total cervical disc prostheses: clinical and radiographic outcome.

OBJECTIVE Recent studies have described encouraging outcomes after cervical total disc replacement (cTDR), but there are also critical debates regarding the long-term effects of heterotopic ossification (HO) and the prevalence of adjacent-level degeneration. The aim in this paper was to provide 4-year clinical and radiographic outcome results on the activ C disc prosthesis. METHODS A total of 200 subjects underwent single-level activ C (Aesculap AG) implantation between C-3 and C-7 for the treatment of symptomatic degenerative disc disease. Clinical and radiographic assessments were performed preoperatively, intraoperatively, at discharge, and again at 6 weeks, 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, and 4 years. Radiographic evaluations were done by an independent core laboratory using a specific software for quantitative motion analysis. RESULTS Neck Disability Index (NDI) and visual analog scale (VAS) score for neck and arm pain decreased significantly from baseline to the 4-year follow-up. The mean improvement for NDI was 20, for VAS severity and frequency of neck pain 26.4 and 28, and for VAS severity and frequency of arm pain 30.7 and 35.1, respectively. The neurological situation improved for the majority of patients (86.4%); 76.1% of cases were asymptomatic. Subsequent surgical interventions were reported in 7% of the cases, including device removals in 3%. In 2.5% a subsidence greater than 3 mm was recorded; 1 of these cases also had a migration greater than 3 mm. No device displacement, expulsion, disassembly, loose or fractured device, osteolysis, or facet joint degeneration at the index level was observed. Segmental lordotic alignment changed from -2.4° preoperatively to -6.2° at 4 years, and postoperative height was maintained during the follow-up. Advanced HO (Grade III and IV) was present in 27.1% of the cases; 82.4% showed segmental mobility. A progression of radiographic adjacent-segment degeneration occurred in 28.2%, but only 4.5% required surgical treatment. CONCLUSIONS The activ C is a safe and effective device for cervical disc replacement confirming the encouraging results after cTDR. Clinical trial registration no.: NCT02492724 ( clinicaltrials.gov ).

Seven-year cost-effectiveness of ProDisc-C total disc replacement: results from investigational device exemption and post-approval studies.

OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to evaluate the 7-year cost-effectiveness of cervical total disc replacement (CTDR) versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for the treatment of patients with single-level symptomatic degenerative disc disease. A change in the spending trajectory for spine care is to be achieved, in part, through the selection of interventions that have been proven effective yet cost less than other options. This analysis complements and builds upon findings from other cost-effectiveness evaluations of CTDR through the use of long-term, patient-level data from a randomized study. METHODS This was a 7-year health economic evaluation comparing CTDR versus ACDF from the US commercial payer perspective. Prospectively collected health care resource utilization and treatment effects (quality-adjusted life years [QALYs]) were obtained from individual patient-level adverse event reports and SF-36 data, respectively, from the randomized, multicenter ProDisc-C total disc replacement investigational device exemption (IDE) study and post-approval study. Statistical distributions for unit costs were derived from a commercial claims database and applied using Monte Carlo simulation. Patient-level costs and effects were modeled via multivariate probabilistic analysis. Confidence intervals for 7-year costs, effects, and net monetary benefit (NMB) were obtained using the nonparametric percentile method from results of 10,000 bootstrap simulations. The robustness of results was assessed through scenario analysis and within a parametric regression model controlling for baseline variables. RESULTS Seven-year follow-up data were available for more than 70% of the 209 randomized patients. In the base-case analysis, CTDR resulted in mean per-patient cost savings of $12,789 (95% CI $5362-$20,856) and per-patient QALY gains of 0.16 (95% CI -0.073 to 0.39) compared with ACDF over 7 years. CTDR was more effective and less costly in 90.8% of probabilistic simulations. CTDR was cost-effective in 99.8% of sensitivity analysis simulations and generated a mean incremental NMB of $20,679 (95% CI $6053-$35,377) per patient at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/QALY. CONCLUSIONS Based on this modeling evaluation, CTDR was found to be more effective and less costly over a 7-year time horizon for patients with single-level symptomatic degenerative disc disease. These results are robust across a range of scenarios and perspectives and are intended to support value-based decision making.

Evaluation of glycerol-preserved bone allografts in cervical spine fusion: a prospective, randomized controlled trial.

OBJECT: Bone allografts used for interbody spinal fusion are often preserved through either freeze drying or lowtemperature freezing, each having disadvantages related to graft preparation time and material properties. In response, a glycerol preservation treatment has been developed to maintain the biomechanical properties of allografts at ambient temperatures, requiring no thawing or rehydration and minimal rinsing prior to implantation. The authors conducted a prospective randomized study to compare the clinical results of glycerol-preserved Cloward dowels and those of freezedried Cloward dowels in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. The primary outcome measures were evidence of fusion and graft subsidence, and the secondary outcome measures included adverse events, pain, and neck disability scores. METHODS: Of 106 patients, 53 (113 levels of surgery) were randomly assigned to the glycerol-preserved graft group and 53 (114 levels of surgery) to the freeze-dried graft group. Subsidence was assessed at 3 and 6 months after implantation. Evidence of fusion was evaluated radiographically at 6 months postimplantation. Subsidence was quantitatively assessed based on physical measurements obtained from radiographs by using calibrated comparators, whereas fusion was also evaluated visually. Surgeons were blinded to treatment type during visual and physical assessments of the patients and the radiographs. RESULTS: No one in either group had evidence of complete nonunion according to radiographic evaluation at the 6-month follow-up. Average subsidence for all graft-treated levels was 2.11 mm for the glycerol-preserved group and 2.73 mm for the freeze-dried group at the 3-month follow-up and 2.13 and 2.83 mm at the 6-month follow-up, respectively. The 2 treatment groups were statistically equivalent (p = 0.2127 and 0.1705 for the 3- and 6-month follow-up, respectively). No differences were noted between the graft types in terms of adverse event incidence or severity. CONCLUSIONS: Glycerol-preserved bone allografts exhibit fusion results and subsidence values similar to those of their freeze-dried counterparts, potentially more favorable biomechanical properties, and significantly shorter preparation times.

Total disc replacement.

Total disc replacement (TDR) (partial disc replacement will not be described) has been used in the lumbar spine since the 1980s, and more recently in the cervical spine. Although the biomechanical concepts are the same and both are inserted through an anterior approach, lumbar TDR is conventionally indicated for chronic low back pain, whereas cervical TDR is used for soft discal hernia resulting in cervicobrachial neuralgia. The insertion technique must be rigorous, with precise centering in the disc space, taking account of vascular anatomy, which is more complex in the lumbar region, particularly proximally to L5-S1. All of the numerous studies, including prospective randomized comparative trials, have demonstrated non-inferiority to fusion, or even short-term superiority regarding speed of improvement. The main implant-related complication is bridging heterotopic ossification with resulting loss of range of motion and increased rates of adjacent segment degeneration, although with an incidence lower than after arthrodesis. A sufficiently long follow-up, which has not yet been reached, will be necessary to establish definitively an advantage for TDR, particularly in the cervical spine.