Should patient eligibility criteria for cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) be expanded?: A retrospective cohort analysis of relatively contraindicated patients undergoing CDA.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Cervical Disc Arthroplasty (CDA) is a safe and effective alternative to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) in the treatment of various degenerative pathologies with advantages of motion preservation and lower rates of adjacent segment degeneration (ASD). Absolute contraindications for CDA have been well outlined in order to prevent adverse outcomes in patients. However, in cases of patients with relative contraindications (kyphotic deformity, prior cervical surgery, etc.), there remains controversy. There is minimal literature evaluating long-term outcomes in this patient population.

PURPOSE

To compare long-term clinical and functional outcomes of cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) in typical patients versus those with relative contraindications.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort review.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Eighty-nine patients were included in the study: 55 (no contraindications) in Group 1 and 34 (relatively contraindicated) in Group 2 and 26 (preoperative segmental kyphosis) in Group 3.

OUTCOME MEASURES

(1) Patient demographics; (2) perioperative data; (3) rates of complications and revisions; (5) visual analogue scale (VAS), and neck disability index (NDI) scores.

METHODS

Patients were placed in the relatively contraindicated cohort if they possessed at least one of the following: (1) segmental kyphosis of 5 to 10 degrees, (2) significant loss of disc height (between 50% and 75% of initial measurements or 1.5-3mm), (3) bridging osteophytes, and (4) prior cervical spine surgery based on preoperative cervical radiographs. The other cohort included patients without any relative contraindication who underwent CDA over the same time frame. Additionally, a subgroup analysis was used to compare those without any contraindications to those with only preoperative segmental kyphosis. Patients were included in this study if they met the following criteria: over 18 years of age, minimum follow-up of 24 months, and availability of complete medical records. Patient demographics, levels operated on, and perioperative outcomes were assessed between the two groups. Revision and complication rates were recorded. Functional outcomes scores were compared using visual analogue scale (VAS) and neck disability index (NDI) scores at 6-months, 12-months and final follow-up.

RESULTS

Mean follow-up was 40.8 months in Group 1 and 38.3 months in Group 2 (p=.569). Complication rates were 21.8% in Group 1 and 26.4% in Group 2 (p=.615). Complication rates in a comparison between Groups 1 and 3 were statistically insignificant (p=.383). The most common complication was transient approach-related postoperative dysphagia (Group 1: 20% vs. Group 2: 23.5%, p=.693). No significant differences were observed in the rates of transient dysphonia (Group 1: 0.0% vs. Group 2: 2.9%, p=.201), adjacent segment degeneration (ASD) (Group 1: 1.8% vs. Group 2: 0.0%, p=.429), infection (Group 1: 1.8% vs Group 2: 2.9%, p=.712), heterotopic ossification (Group 1: 49.1% vs. Group 2: 50.0%, p=.934) or spontaneous fusion (Group 1: 1.8% vs. Group 2: 2.9%, p=.728). No revision surgeries were observed in either cohort. All three groups demonstrated significant improvements in their VAS and NDI scores compared with preoperative measurements (p<.001), but no significant differences were found in the degree of improvement between groups at any point in time.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study found no significant differences in clinical and functional outcomes between patients undergoing 1- and 2-level CDA with relative contraindications versus typical patients. These findings suggest that patient eligibility criteria for CDA may warrant expansion. However, future prospective studies over a longer period of follow-up are necessary to corroborate our results.

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Declaration of Competing Interest Dr Emami receives grants/research support from NuVasive. Dr Hwang is a consultant for Stryker Spine. None of these are applicable to the current study. For the remaining authors, none were declared.