Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2012 Oct;33(9):1631-41.
doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A2758. Epub 2011 Oct 27.

Cervical and lumbar spinal arthroplasty: clinical review

Affiliations
Review

Cervical and lumbar spinal arthroplasty: clinical review

T D Uschold et al. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2012 Oct.

Abstract

In contrast to cervical and lumbar fusion procedures, the principal aim of disk arthroplasty is to recapitulate the normal kinematics and biomechanics of the spinal segment affected. Following decompression of the neural elements, disk arthroplasty allows restoration of disk height and maintenance of spinal alignment. Based on clinical observations and biomechanical testing, the anticipated advantage of arthroplasty over standard arthrodesis techniques has been a proposed reduction in the development of symptomatic ALD. In this review of cervical and lumbar disk arthroplasty, we highlight the clinical results and experience with standard fusion techniques, incidence of ALD in the population of patients with surgical fusion, and indications for arthroplasty, as well as the biomechanical and clinical outcomes following arthroplasty. In addition, we introduce the devices currently available and provide a critical appraisal of the clinical evidence regarding arthroplasty procedures.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig 1.
Fig 1.
Ideal candidate for cervical arthroplasty. A, Lateral radiograph depicting minimal facet arthropathy and degenerative disease. B and C, Extension (B) and flexion (C) radiographs depicting normal segmental motion at the index level and throughout the cervical spine. D, Sagittal T2-weighted MR image depicting single-level degenerative disk disease, endplate changes, relative preservation of disk height, and posterior disk bulge without marked osteophyte formation.
Fig 2.
Fig 2.
Case illustrating the importance of patient positioning for optimized biomechanics. A, A 36-year-old man with radicular symptoms referable to this C6–7 paramedian disk herniation seen on a sagittal T2-weighted MR image. The patient was positioned in mild cervical lordosis during ProDisc-C placement. B and C, As a result, postoperative extension (B) and flexion (C) radiographs obtained at 6 months revealed no movement at the instrumented level. D, Segmental motion was evident only with maximal extension beyond the typical physiologic range of motion.
Fig 3.
Fig 3.
Dynamic flexion (A) and extension (B) postoperative lateral cervical radiographs following Prestige-ST arthroplasty in a 56-year-old woman. Segmental range of motion is preserved by the Prestige-ST device. Despite motion preservation, this particular patient ultimately required CT myelography, removal of the arthroplasty device, and 2-level anterior cervical fusion for symptomatic adjacent-level disease 1 year after arthroplasty.
Fig 4.
Fig 4.
Case illustrating the importance of device positioning. A 37-year-old man with prior history of noninstrumented L5-S1 microdiskectomy, now presenting with axial back pain. A, Sagittal T2-weighted MR image depicting degenerative disk disease at the previously operated level. Normal segmental motion without radiographically detectable instability was identified on preoperative flexion/extension dynamic radiographs. B and C, Postoperative lateral (B) and anteroposterior (C) views depicting the off-midline position of the ProDisc-L device. At the time of device placement, visualization of the L5-S1 level was limited due to immobile vascular structures. D, The patient awoke with right S1 radicular pain attributable to foraminal encroachment from the device as seen on this axial CT scan. The patient failed a short course of conservative management and ultimately required a right-sided L5-S1 hemilaminotomy, foraminotomy, and partial facetectomy for relief of symptoms.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Cloward RB. Vertebral body fusion for ruptured cervical discs. Am J Surg 1959; 98: 722– 27 - PubMed
    1. Bailey RW, Badgley CE. Stabilization of the cervical spine by anterior fusion. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1960; 42-A: 565– 94 - PubMed
    1. Robinson RA. The problem of neck pain: its alleviation by anterior removal of intervertebral disc with interbody fusion in the cervical spine. J Med Assoc State Ala 1963; 33: 1– 14 - PubMed
    1. Smith GW, Robinson RA. The treatment of certain cervical-spine disorders by anterior removal of the intervertebral disc and interbody fusion. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1958; 40-A: 607– 24 - PubMed
    1. Chiles BW, 3rd, Leonard MA, Choudhri HF, et al. . Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: patterns of neurological deficit and recovery after anterior cervical decompression. Neurosurgery 1999; 44: 762– 69, discussion 769–70 - PubMed

MeSH terms