Complications of Cervical Disc Prosthesis Dislocation: A Retrospective Clinical Study

Objective: The most commonly used method for the surgical treatment of cervical disc herniation (CDH) is anterior disc excision with Smith-Robinson’s approach. Following the excision of pathological disc space, disc prosthesis is placed if a continuation of dynamic movement in the disc space is desired and a cervical cage is placed for the purpose of fusion. Cervical disc prosthesis seems superior to cervical cage; however, it is not suitable for every patient and can cause serious complications. Our study include data of patients who developed complications following the dislocation of cervical prosthesis and who were referred to our clinic. The aim of our study is to emphasize that the cervical prosthesis is not suitable for every patient and may cause serious complications. Methods: Data of the patients who were operated due to the diagnosis of CDH in other centers and underwent revision surgery for the development of cervical prosthesis dislocation between 2013 and 2020 were collected. Results: This study analysed the data of four male and three female patients. The median value of patient ages was 42 (28-53). Neck pain and swallowing difficulty were the most common reasons for admission to the clinic. Dislocation was found to develop after trauma in three patients. Anterior and posterior dislocations were found to develop in five and two patients, respectively. Seven patients underwent revision surgery. All these patients were found to have dislocations at the C5-6 level. Conclusion: The prosthesis to be placed in the surgical treatment of CDH should be determined based on the patient. Detailed information should be provided to the patient for whom cervical disc prosthesis is to be placed and prosthesis of the most appropriate size for disc space should be placed properly.

[1]  G. Guven,et al.  Radiological and Clinical Comparison of the Results of Patients with Fusion and Unfusion Cervical Anterior Microdiscectomy with the Help of Cases and Literature , 2020 .

[2]  Hsi-Kai Tsou,et al.  Metallosis after traumatic loosening of Bryan cervical disc arthroplasty: a case report and literature review , 2018, European Spine Journal.

[3]  Daniel C. Lu,et al.  Cervical artificial disc extrusion after a paragliding accident , 2017, Surgical neurology international.

[4]  M. Helgeson,et al.  Traumatic Migration of the Bryan Cervical Disc Arthroplasty , 2015, Global spine journal.

[5]  W. Walsh,et al.  The design evolution of interbody cages in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a systematic review , 2015, BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders.

[6]  P. Barša,et al.  Heterotopic Ossification in Total Cervical Artificial Disc Replacement , 2006, Spine.

[7]  V. Traynelis,et al.  The Prestige cervical disc replacement. , 2004, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[8]  G. Pickett,et al.  Early clinical and biomechanical results following cervical arthroplasty. , 2004, Neurosurgical focus.

[9]  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.

[10]  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.

[11]  N S Brooke,et al.  Preliminary experience of carbon fibre cage prostheses for treatment of cervical spine disorders. , 1997, British journal of neurosurgery.