Abstract
Cervical total disc replacement (CTDR) has been increasingly used as an alternative to fusion surgery in patients with pain or neurological symptoms in the cervical spine who do not respond to non-surgical treatment. A systematic literature review has been conducted to evaluate whether CTDR is more efficacious and safer than fusion or non-surgical treatment. Published evidence up to date is summarised qualitatively according to the GRADE methodology. After 2 years of follow-up, studies demonstrated statistically significant non-inferiority of CTDR versus fusion with respect to the composite outcome ‘overall success’. Single patient relevant endpoints such as pain, disability or quality of life improved in both groups with no superiority of CTDR. Both technologies showed similar complication rates. No evidence is available for the comparison between CTDR and non-surgical treatment. In the long run improvement of health outcomes seems to be similar in CTDR and fusion, however, the study quality is often severely limited. After both interventions, many patients still face problems. A difficulty per se is the correct diagnosis and indication for surgical interventions in the cervical spine. CTDR is no better than fusion in alleviating symptoms related to disc degeneration in the cervical spine. In the context of limited resources, a net cost comparison may be sensible. So far, CTDR is not recommended for routine use. As many trials are ongoing, re-evaluation at a later date will be required. Future research needs to address the relative effectiveness between CTDR and conservative treatment.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Anderson PA, Sasso RC, Riew KD, Anderson PA, Sasso RC, Riew KD (2008) Comparison of adverse events between the Bryan artificial cervical disc and anterior cervical arthrodesis. Spine 33:1305–1312
Blue Cross Blue Shield A (2007) Artificial lumbar disc replacement. Blue Cross Blue Shield Association (BCBS), Chicago
Blue Cross Blue Shield A (2008) Artificial intervertebral disc arthroplasty for treatment of degenerative disc disease of the cervical spine. Technology evaluation center assessment program. Executive summary, vol 24, pp 1–4
Boos N, Rieder R, Schade V, Spratt KF, Semmer N, Aebi M (1995) 1995 Volvo award in clinical sciences. The diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging, work perception and psychosocial factors in identifying symptomatic disc herniations. Spine 20:2613–2625
Cheng L, Nie L, Zhang L, Hou Y, Cheng L, Nie L, Zhang L, Hou Y (2009) Fusion versus Bryan cervical disc in two-level cervical disc disease: a prospective, randomised study. Int Orthop 33:1347–1351
Fekete TF, Porchet F (2009) Overview of disc arthroplasty-past, present and future. Acta Neurochir 152:392–404
Gartlehner G (2007) Internes Manual. Abläufe und Methoden. In: LBI-HTA (ed) LBI-HTA, Vienna
Grob D, Porchet F, Kleinstuck FS, Lattig F, Jeszenszky D, Luca A, Mutter U, Mannion AF (2009) A comparison of outcomes of cervical disc arthroplasty and fusion in everyday clinical practice: surgical and methodological aspects. Eur Spine J 19(2):297–306
Guyatt G, Oxman A, Vist G, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, Schünemann H (2008) For the GRADE Working Group Rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. Br Med J 336:924–926
Heller JG, Sasso RC, Papadopoulos SM, Anderson PA, Fessler RG, Hacker RJ, Coric D, Cauthen JC, Riew DK, Heller JG, Sasso RC, Papadopoulos SM, Anderson PA, Fessler RG, Hacker RJ, Coric D, Cauthen JC, Riew DK (2009) Comparison of BRYAN cervical disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical decompression and fusion: clinical and radiographic results of a randomized, controlled, clinical trial. Spine 34:101–107
Higgins JPT, Green S, The Cochrane Collaboration (eds) (2009) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.0.2 (updated September 2009)
Medical Advisory Secretariat (2006) Artificial disc replacement for lumbar and cervical degenerative disc disease-update: an evidence-based analysis. Medical Advisory Secretariat, Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (MAS), Toronto
Mummaneni PV, Burkus JK, Haid RW, Traynelis VC, Zdeblick TA, Mummaneni PV, Burkus JK, Haid RW, Traynelis VC, Zdeblick TA (2007) Clinical and radiographic analysis of cervical disc arthroplasty compared with allograft fusion: a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Neurosurg Spine 6:198–209
Murrey D, Janssen M, Delamarter R, Goldstein J, Zigler J, Tay B, Darden B, Murrey D, Janssen M, Delamarter R, Goldstein J, Zigler J, Tay B, Darden B (2009) Results of the prospective, randomized, controlled multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study of the ProDisc-C total disc replacement versus anterior discectomy and fusion for the treatment of 1-level symptomatic cervical disc disease. Spine J 9:275–286
Nabhan A, Ahlhelm F, Pitzen T, Steudel WI, Jung J, Shariat K, Steimer O, Bachelier F, Pape D, Nabhan A, Ahlhelm F, Pitzen T, Steudel WI, Jung J, Shariat K, Steimer O, Bachelier F, Pape D (2007) Disc replacement using Pro-Disc C versus fusion: a prospective randomised and controlled radiographic and clinical study. Eur Spine J 16:423–430
Phillips FM, Allen TR, Regan JJ, Albert TJ, Cappuccino A, Devine JG, Ahrens JE, Hipp JA, McAfee PC, Phillips FM, Allen TR, Regan JJ, Albert TJ, Cappuccino A, Devine JG, Ahrens JE, Hipp JA, McAfee PC (2009) Cervical disc replacement in patients with and without previous adjacent level fusion surgery: a prospective study. Spine 34:556–565
Robertson JT, Papadopoulos SM, Traynelis VC, Robertson JT, Papadopoulos SM, Traynelis VC (2005) Assessment of adjacent-segment disease in patients treated with cervical fusion or arthroplasty: a prospective 2-year study. J Neurosurg Spine 3:417–423
Sekhon LH, Sears W, Duggal N, Sekhon LHS, Sears W, Duggal N (2005) Cervical arthroplasty after previous surgery: results of treating 24 discs in 15 patients. J Neurosurg Spine 3:335–341
W. C. B. Evidence Based Practice Group (2005) Artificial cervical and lumbar disc implants: a review of the literature. WorkSafe BC Richmond, BC
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to Silvia Brandstätter for her valuable comments on earlier versions of the manuscript and to Tarquin Mittermayr for the support in the systematic literature search.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Zechmeister, I., Winkler, R. & Mad, P. Artificial total disc replacement versus fusion for the cervical spine: a systematic review. Eur Spine J 20, 177–184 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-010-1583-7
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-010-1583-7