In gratitude of the loyal support of our members, the CNS is offering complimentary 2021 Annual Meeting registration to all members! Learn more.

  • Which Cervical Artificial Disc Should We Choose?: An In Vivo Study.

    Final Number:
    234

    Authors:
    Hoon Choi MD MS; Jamie Baisden MD, FACS; Narayan Yoganandan PhD

    Study Design:
    Laboratory Investigation

    Subject Category:
    Spine

    Meeting: Section on Disorders of the Spine and Peripheral Nerves Spine Summit 2018

    Introduction: There has been increasing attention on cervical arthroplasty as an alternative to arthrodesis as a way to preserve motion, reduce adjacent level degeneration, avoid reoperation, and improve patient-reported outcome. There are three types of cervical artificial discs on the market: constrained, semi-constrained, and unconstrained. There is no federally funded in vivo study that directly compares different cervical artificial discs.

    Methods: We performed cervical arthroplasty at C3/4 level in 14 healthy female adult Alpine goats. Five goats received Bryan (Medtronic) (constrained disc); five goats received ProDisc-C (DePuy Synthes Johnson&Johnson) (semi-constrained); and four goats received Mobi-C (LDR Biomet Zimmer) (unconstrained). These goats were monitored in a unit for six months with regular cervical spine radiographs.

    Results: All 14 goats tolerated the surgery well. All had satisfactory placement of hardware. No migration of implant occurred in the Bryan and ProDisc-C groups. 100% migration rate (4/4) was observed with Mobi-C within the first week, requiring implant removal and arthrodesis with an interbody and anterior plating. Heterotopic ossification was observed at six months in 40% of goats with Bryan (2/5). Partial heterotopic ossification (with motion preservation) was seen in 20% of goats with ProDisc-C (1/5). Cervical motion was ultimately preserved at six months in no goats with Mobi-C (due to fusion), 60% of goats with Bryan, and 100% of goats with ProDisc-C.

    Conclusions: Unconstrained cervical artificial discs are prone to anterior migration. Constrained discs are more likely to develop heterotopic ossification than semi-constrained discs. Semi-constrained discs are most likely to preserve motion.

    Patient Care: By helping clinicians choose which cervical artificial disc is safe and effective.

    Learning Objectives: 1) Recognize different designs of cervical artificial discs 2) Discuss potential complications of cervical arthroplasty 3) Identify the most likely cervical artificial disc design to maintain motion

    References:

We use cookies to improve the performance of our site, to analyze the traffic to our site, and to personalize your experience of the site. You can control cookies through your browser settings. Please find more information on the cookies used on our site. Privacy Policy