Intervertebral Disc Arthroplasty

Study design. Review article of current knowledge of disc arthroplasty. Objectives. To review the rationale for disc replacement, the general principles of design, and early clinical results. Summary of background data. Disc arthroplasty is an emerging treatment for patients with disc degeneration. Its theoretical advantages are to maintain motion, decrease the incidence of adjacent segment degeneration, avoid complications related to fusion, and allow early return to function. Methods. Literature review of currently implanted prostheses or those undergoing investigation. Results. At this time, the theoretical advantages are unproven clinically but have been confirmed in biomechanical and kinematic investigations. Multicenter studies of both cervical and lumbar prostheses have shown short-term results equivalent to fusion. Neurologic complications and failures have been rare. Prosthetic subsidence and long-term wear will most likely be potential failure mechanisms. Thus far, with the exception of nucleoplasty, these problems have not been observed. Conclusions. The early results are satisfactory, but the basic premise that motion preservation will diminish adjacent segment degeneration is yet unproven. Long-term results are unavailable and failure modes are unknown. Before implantation, the surgeon and patient must understand the experimental nature of the devices.

[1]  S. Sepic,et al.  Roentgenographic findings following anterior cervical fusion , 2004, Skeletal Radiology.

[2]  S. Sepic,et al.  Anterior Discectomy and Fusion for Painful Cervical Disc Disease: A Report of 50 Patients With an Average Follow‐up of 21 Years , 1998, Spine.

[3]  S. Emery,et al.  Three‐Level Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: Radiographic and Clinical Results , 1997, Spine.

[4]  T. David,et al.  [Lumbar arthrodesis: results after more than 10 years]. , 1985, Revue de chirurgie orthopedique et reparatrice de l'appareil moteur.

[5]  Gary L. Lowery,et al.  Total disc replacement arthroplasty using the AcroFlex lumbar disc: a non-human primate model , 2002, European Spine Journal.

[6]  Qi-Bin Bao,et al.  New technologies in spine: nucleus replacement. , 2002, Spine.

[7]  B. Cunningham,et al.  Cervical Disc Replacement—Porous Coated Motion Prosthesis: A Comparative Biomechanical Analysis Showing the Key Role of the Posterior Longitudinal Ligament , 2003, Spine.

[8]  S. O’Driscoll Current Concepts Review - The Healing and Regeneration of Articular Cartilage* , 1998 .

[9]  Ricardo Vieira Botelho,et al.  Preliminary clinical experience with the Bryan cervical disc prosthesis. , 2003, Neurosurgery.

[10]  C. D. Ray The PDN® prosthetic disc-nucleus device , 2002, European Spine Journal.

[11]  Jeffrey C. Wang,et al.  Increased Fusion Rates With Cervical Plating for Three-Level Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion , 2001, Spine.

[12]  H. Sagi,et al.  Nuclear replacement strategies. , 2003, The Orthopedic cllinics of North America.

[13]  J. Lewis,et al.  Lumbar intradiscal pressure after posterolateral fusion and pedicle screw fixation. , 1998, The Tohoku journal of experimental medicine.

[14]  S. L. Griffith,et al.  Intradiscal Pressure Measurements Above an Instrumented Fusion: A Cadaveric Study , 1995, Spine.

[15]  H G Edeland,et al.  Suggestions for a total elasto-dynamic intervertebral disc prosthesis. , 1981, Biomaterials, medical devices, and artificial organs.

[16]  Anders Nordwall,et al.  Complications in lumbar fusion surgery for chronic low back pain: comparison of three surgical techniques used in a prospective randomized study. A report from the Swedish Lumbar Spine Study Group , 2003, European Spine Journal.

[17]  P. McAfee,et al.  Biomaterial Optimization in Total Disc Arthroplasty , 2003, Spine.

[18]  W. Maloney,et al.  Cellular profile and cytokine production at prosthetic interfaces. Study of tissues retrieved from revised hip and knee replacements. , 1998, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[19]  F. Girardi,et al.  Lumbar Disc Replacement: Preliminary Results with ProDisc II After a Minimum Follow-Up Period of 1 Year , 2003, Journal of spinal disorders & techniques.

[20]  L. Sekhon,et al.  Cervical Arthroplasty in the Management of Spondylotic Myelopathy , 2003, Journal of spinal disorders & techniques.

[21]  B. Darden,et al.  Segmental (“Floating”) Lumbar Spine Fusions , 1989, Spine.

[22]  F. Oner,et al.  Complications of Artificial Disc Replacement: A Report of 27 Patients with the SB Charité Disc , 2003, Journal of spinal disorders & techniques.

[23]  S. O’Driscoll The healing and regeneration of articular cartilage. , 1998, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[24]  Tae-Hong Lim,et al.  Biomechanical Study on the Effect of Cervical Spine Fusion on Adjacent-Level Intradiscal Pressure and Segmental Motion , 2002, Spine.

[25]  Elizabeth A. Krupinski,et al.  Oblique Reformation in Cervical Spine Computed Tomography: A New Look at an Old Friend , 2003, Spine.

[26]  P. Anderson,et al.  Wear Analysis of the Bryan Cervical Disc Prosthesis , 2003, Spine.

[27]  M. Panjabi,et al.  Normal motion of the lumbar spine as related to age and gender , 2004, European Spine Journal.

[28]  J. Robertson,et al.  The New Frenchay Artificial Cervical Joint: Results From a Two-Year Pilot Study , 2002, Spine.

[29]  Jan Goffin,et al.  Intermediate Follow-up After Treatment of Degenerative Disc Disease With the Bryan Cervical Disc Prosthesis: Single-Level and Bi-Level , 2003, Spine.

[30]  A. Reyes-Sánchez,et al.  Treatment of thoracolumbar burst fractures by vertebral shortening , 2002, European Spine Journal.

[31]  B. Cunningham,et al.  The Effect of Titanium Particulate on Development and Maintenance of a Posterolateral Spinal Arthrodesis: An In Vivo Rabbit Model , 2002, Spine.

[32]  S. Blumenthal,et al.  Prospective Study Evaluating Total Disc Replacement: Preliminary Results , 2003, Journal of spinal disorders & techniques.

[33]  A. Hilibrand,et al.  Radiculopathy and myelopathy at segments adjacent to the site of a previous anterior cervical arthrodesis. , 1999, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[34]  R. Komistek,et al.  In Vivo Kinematics of Normal , Degenerative , Fused and Disk-Replaced Cervical Spines , 2004 .

[35]  D. Ohnmeiss,et al.  Lumbar Spine Arthroplasty: Early Results Using the ProDisc II: A Prospective Randomized Trial of Arthroplasty Versus Fusion , 2003, Journal of spinal disorders & techniques.

[36]  Hyun Bae,et al.  ProDisc Artificial Total Lumbar Disc Replacement: Introduction and Early Results From the United States Clinical Trial , 2003, Spine.

[37]  B. Cunningham,et al.  The effect of spinal instrumentation particulate wear debris. an in vivo rabbit model and applied clinical study of retrieved instrumentation cases. , 2002, The spine journal.

[38]  Robert Gunzburg,et al.  Spine arthroplasty: a historical review , 2002, European Spine Journal.

[39]  B. Strömqvist,et al.  The Spondylolytic Vertebra and Its Adjacent Segment: Mobility Measured Before and After Posterolateral Fusion , 1997, Spine.

[40]  Jan Goffin,et al.  Long-Term Follow-Up After Interbody Fusion of the Cervical Spine , 2004, Journal of spinal disorders & techniques.

[41]  S. Tarhan,et al.  Measurement of spinal canal diameters in young subjects with lumbosacral transitional vertebra , 2002, European Spine Journal.

[42]  J Dvorak,et al.  Age and Gender Related Normal Motion of the Cervical Spine , 1992, Spine.

[43]  L. Wiltse,et al.  The Transition Zone Above a Lumbosacral Fusion , 1998, Spine.

[44]  W. Skalli,et al.  Intervertebral Disc Prosthesis: Results and Prospects for the Year 2000 , 1997, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[45]  Alf Nachemson,et al.  Spinal-fusion surgery - the case for restraint. , 2004, The New England journal of medicine.

[46]  M. Brittberg,et al.  Articular cartilage engineering with autologous chondrocyte transplantation. A review of recent developments. , 2003, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[47]  T. Smit The use of a quadruped as an in vivo model for the study of the spine – biomechanical considerations , 2002, European Spine Journal.

[48]  D T Davy,et al.  A Kinematic Study of the Cervical Spine Before and After Segmental Arthrodesis , 1998, Spine.

[49]  S. Blumenthal,et al.  Artificial disc: preliminary results of a prospective study in the United States , 2002, European Spine Journal.

[50]  H. Gruber,et al.  Recent Advances in Disc Cell Biology , 2003, Spine.

[51]  A. Uchida,et al.  Metal Concentrations in the Serum and Hair of Patients With Titanium Alloy Spinal Implants , 2003, Spine.

[52]  T. Albert,et al.  Donor Site Morbidity After Anterior Iliac Crest Bone Harvest for Single-Level Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion , 2003, Spine.

[53]  Denis J. DiAngelo,et al.  Biomechanical Testing of an Artificial Cervical Joint and an Anterior Cervical Plate , 2003, Journal of spinal disorders & techniques.

[54]  S. Goodman,et al.  Effect of size, concentration, surface area, and volume of polymethylmethacrylate particles on human macrophages in vitro. , 1996, Journal of biomedical materials research.

[55]  Jian-ming Jiang,et al.  Prosthetic Disc Nucleus (PDN) Replacement for Lumbar Disc Herniation: Preliminary Report with Six Months' Follow-Up , 2003, Journal of spinal disorders & techniques.

[56]  S. H. Lee,et al.  Partial Disc Replacement with the PDN Prosthetic Disc Nucleus Device: Early Clinical Results , 2003, Journal of spinal disorders & techniques.

[57]  V. Goel,et al.  Load-Sharing Between Anterior and Posterior Elements in a Lumbar Motion Segment Implanted With an Artificial Disc , 2001, Spine.

[58]  CASEY K. LEE,et al.  Accelerated Degeneration of the Segment Adjacent to a Lumbar Fusion , 1988, Spine.

[59]  S. Bennett,et al.  Active Range of Motion Utilized in the Cervical Spine to Perform Daily Functional Tasks , 2002, Journal of spinal disorders & techniques.

[60]  R. Bertagnoli,et al.  Surgical and clinical results with the PDN® prosthetic disc-nucleus device , 2002, European Spine Journal.