Revision Strategies for Cervical Disc Arthroplasty.
Journal
Clinical spine surgery
ISSN: 2380-0194
Titre abrégé: Clin Spine Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101675083
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Nov 2023
01 Nov 2023
Historique:
received:
22
08
2023
accepted:
28
08
2023
medline:
10
11
2023
pubmed:
27
9
2023
entrez:
27
9
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Narrative review. To review indications and strategies for revision of cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA). No data were generated as part of this review. A narrative review of the literature was performed. No results were generated as part of this review. CDA is a proven, motion-sparing surgical option for the treatment of myelopathy or radiculopathy secondary to cervical degenerative disc disease. As is the case with any operation, a small percentage of CDA will require revision, which can be a technically demanding endeavor. Here we review available revision strategies and associated indications, a thorough understanding of which will aid the surgeon in finely tailoring their approach to varying presentations.
Sections du résumé
STUDY DESIGN
METHODS
Narrative review.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
To review indications and strategies for revision of cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA).
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA
BACKGROUND
No data were generated as part of this review.
METHODS
METHODS
A narrative review of the literature was performed.
RESULTS
RESULTS
No results were generated as part of this review.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
CDA is a proven, motion-sparing surgical option for the treatment of myelopathy or radiculopathy secondary to cervical degenerative disc disease. As is the case with any operation, a small percentage of CDA will require revision, which can be a technically demanding endeavor. Here we review available revision strategies and associated indications, a thorough understanding of which will aid the surgeon in finely tailoring their approach to varying presentations.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37752631
doi: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000001542
pii: 01933606-202311000-00012
doi:
Types de publication
Review
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
411-418Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
K.D.R. receives royalties from Biomet, Happe Spine, and Nuvasive, consulting fees from Happe Spine and Nuvasive, travel support from Nuvasive, and owns stock in Axiomed, Expanding Orthopedics, Spineology, Spinal Kinetics, Amedica, Vertiflex, Benvenue Medical, Paradigm Spine, and Happe Spine. The remaining authors declare no conflict of interest.
Références
Joaquim AF, Makhni MC, Riew KD. Evidence-based use of arthroplasty in cervical degenerative disc disease. Int Orthop. 2019;43:767–775.
Chang CJ, Liu YF, Hsiao YM, et al. Comparison of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion versus artificial disc replacement for cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a meta-analysis. J Neurosurg Spine. 2022;37:569–578.
Badhiwala JH, Platt A, Witiw CD, et al. Cervical disc arthroplasty versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a meta-analysis of rates of adjacent-level surgery to 7-year follow-up. J Spine Surg. 2020;6:217–232.
Zhang Y, Lv N, He F, et al. Comparison of cervical disc arthroplasty and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for the treatment of cervical disc degenerative diseases on the basis of more than 60 months of follow-up: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Neurol. 2020;20:143.
Arrojas A, Jackson JB III, Grabowski G. Trends in the treatment of single and multilevel cervical stenosis: a review of the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery Database. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2017;99:e99.
Lu Y, McAnany SJ, Hecht AC, et al. Utilization trends of cervical artificial disc replacement after FDA approval compared with anterior cervical fusion: adoption of new technology. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014;39:249–255.
Makhni MC, Osorio JA, Park PJ, et al. Cervical disc arthroplasty: tips and tricks. Int Orthop. 2019;43:777–783.
Auerbach JD, Jones KJ, Fras CI, et al. The prevalence of indications and contraindications to cervical total disc replacement. Spine J. 2008;8:711–716.
Leven D, Meaike J, Radcliff K, et al. Cervical disc replacement surgery: indications, technique, and technical pearls. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2017;10:160–169.
Saifi C, Fein AW, Cazzulino A, et al. Trends in resource utilization and rate of cervical disc arthroplasty and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion throughout the United States from 2006 to 2013. Spine J. 2018;18:1022–1029.
Gordon AM, Golub IJ, Ng MK, et al. Primary and revision cervical disc arthroplasty from 2010-2020: patient demographics, utilization trends, and health care reimbursements. World Neurosurg. 2022;168:e344–e349.
Skeppholm M, Henriques T, Tullberg T. Higher reoperation rate following cervical disc replacement in a retrospective, long-term comparative study of 715 patients. Eur Spine J. 2017;26:2434–2440.
Lee NJ, Joaquim AF, Boddapati V, et al. Revision anterior cervical disc arthroplasty: a national analysis of the associated indications, procedures, and postoperative outcomes. Global Spine J. 2022;12:1338–1344.
Joaquim AF, Lee NJ, Riew KD. Revision surgeries at the index level after cervical disc arthroplasty—a systematic review. Neurospine. 2021;18:34–44.
Zavras AG, Sullivan TB, Singh K, et al. Failure in cervical total disc arthroplasty: single institution experience, systematic review of the literature, and proposal of the RUSH TDA failure classification system. Spine J. 2022;22:353–369.
Yang D, Xu L, Hu Y, et al. Diagnosis and treatment of cervical spondylotic radiculopathy using selective nerve root block (SNRB): where are we now? Pain Ther. 2022;11:341–357.
Park JB, Chang H, Yeom JS, et al. Revision surgeries following artificial disc replacement of cervical spine. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2016;50:610–618.
Joaquim AF, Lee NJ, Lehman RA Jr, et al. Osteolysis after cervical disc arthroplasty. Eur Spine J. 2020;29:2723–2733.
Hacker FM, Babcock RM, Hacker RJ. Very late complications of cervical arthroplasty: results of 2 controlled randomized prospective studies from a single investigator site. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013;38:2223–2226.
Tumialan LM, Gluf WM. Progressive vertebral body osteolysis after cervical disc arthroplasty. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011;36:E973–E978.
Fountas KN, Kapsalaki EZ, Nikolakakos LG, et al. Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion-associated complications. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007;32:2310–2317.
Loidolt T, Kurra S, Riew KD, et al. Comparison of adverse events between cervical disc arthroplasty and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a 10-year follow-up. Spine J. 2021;21:253–264.
Bevevino AJ, Lehman RA Jr, Kang DG, et al. The effect of cervical posterior foraminotomy on segmental range of motion in the setting of total disc arthroplasty. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014;39:1572–1577.
Sarmiento JM, Hanna G, Baron EM, et al. Anterior cervical foraminotomy for radiculopathy after cervical artificial disc replacement: technique description and case report. Int J Spine Surg. 2022;16:384–392.
Onken J, Reinke A, Radke J, et al. Revision surgery for cervical artificial disc: surgical technique and clinical results. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2017;152:39–44.
Skovrlj B, Lee DH, Caridi JM, et al. Reoperations following cervical disc replacement. Asian Spine J. 2015;9:471–482.
Kong L, Ma Q, Meng F, et al. The prevalence of heterotopic ossification among patients after cervical artificial disc replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017;96:e7163.