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
. 2016 Oct;50(5):544-547.
doi: 10.1016/j.aott.2016.03.003. Epub 2016 Oct 21.

Discrepancy between cervical disc prostheses and anatomical cervical dimensions

Sinan Karaca  1 , Ahmet Onur Akpolat  2 , Ahmet Oztermeli  2 , Mehmet Nuri Erdem  3 , Mehmet Aydogan  3
Affiliations

Discrepancy between cervical disc prostheses and anatomical cervical dimensions

Sinan Karaca et al. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2016 Oct.

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to assess appropriateness of the sizes of available cervical disc prostheses based on tomographic measurement of human cervical vertebrae.

Methods: The anatomic dimensions of the C3-C7 segments were measured on 50 patients (age range 26-47 years) with computerized tomography scan and compared with the sizes of the popular cervical total disc prostheses (CTDP) at the market [Bryan (Medtronic), Prodisc-C (Synthes), Prestige LP (Medtronic), Discover (DePuy)]. The mediolateral and anteriorposterior diameters of the upper and lower endplates were measured with a digital measuring system.

Results: Overall, 43.7% of the largest implant footprints were smaller in the anterior-posterior diameter and 42.6% in the mediolateral diameter were smaller than cervical endplate measurements. Discrepancy of the level C5/C6 and C6/C7 was calculated as 56.2% at the anteroposterior diameter and 43.8% at the center of mediolateral diameter.

Conclusion: Large disparity has been found between the sizes of devices and cervical anatomic data. Companies that produce CTDP should take care of the anatomical dimensions and generate different sizes of CTDP. Spine surgeon should be familiar with the size mismatch in CTDP that may affect the clinical and radiological outcome of the surgery.

Keywords: Anatomical cervical dimensions; Cervical degenerative disc disease; Cervical disc prostheses; Discrepancy; Mismatch.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
(A) The center mediolateral (CML) diameter of the superior and inferior endplates of C3–C7 in the coronal CT scans. (B) The anterior-posterior (AP) diameter of the superior and inferior endplates of C3–C7 in the sagittal CT scans.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Goffin J., Geusens E., Vantomme N. Long-term follow-up after interbody fusion of the cervical spine. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2004;17:79–85. - PubMed
    1. Goffin J., Van Calenbergh F., van Loon J. Intermediate follow-up after treatment of degenerative disc disease with the Bryan Cervical Disc Prosthesis: single-level and bi-level. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2003;28:2673–2678. - PubMed
    1. Mummaneni P.V., Haid R.W. The future in the care of the cervical spine: interbody fusion and arthroplasty. Invited submission from the Joint Section Meeting on Disorders of the Spine and Peripheral Nerves, March 2004. J Neurosurg Spine. 2004;1:155–159. - PubMed
    1. Wigfield C., Gill S., Nelson R., Langdon I., Metcalf N., Robertson J. Influence of an artificial cervical joint compared with fusion on adjacent-level motion in the treatment of degenerative cervical disc disease. J Neurosurg. 2002;96(1 Suppl.):17–21. - PubMed
    1. Lin C.Y., Kang H., Rouleau J.P., Hollister S.J., Marca F.L. Stress analysis of the interface between cervical vertebrae end plates and the Bryan, Prestige LP, and ProDisc-C cervical disc prostheses: an in vivo image-based finite element study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2009;34(15):1554–1560. - PubMed