Download PDF
Evid Based Spine Care J 2012; 3(S 01): 31-38
DOI: 10.1055/s-0031-1298606
Systematic review
© AOSpine International Stettbachstrasse 6 8600 Dübendorf, Switzerland

A systematic review of cervical artificial disc replacement wear characteristics and durability

Ronald Lehman
1   Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, MD, USA
,
Adam J Bevevino
1   Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, MD, USA
,
Devon D Brewer
2   Spectrum Research Inc, Tacoma, WA, USA. Interdisciplinary Scientific Research, Seattle WA, USA
,
Andrea C Skelly
3   Spectrum Research Inc, Tacoma, WA, USA
,
Paul A Anderson
4   Department of Orthopedics & Rehabilitation, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
31 May 2012 (online)

Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

Study design: Systematic review.

Clinical questions: (1) What evidence is available from studies of cervical total disc arthroplasty (C-ADR) failure and retrieval regarding durability, wear, and reasons for failure of C-ADR? (2) What evidence is available from experimental models regarding the durability of C-ADR beyond 5 years?

Methods: We searched electronic databases to identify published reports of explanted cervical artificial discs and biomechanical simulations of disc wear.

Results: Nine articles were identified describing 17 devices explanted from human patients and four articles describing 23 devices explanted from non-human subjects. Wear properties were not consistently reported across studies, so summaries for specific variables are based on few cases. No device had been implanted longer than 4 years. In both human and non-human subjects, devices showed evidence of metallic and polymeric (for discs with polymer components) debris. Inflammatory cells were frequently present in surrounding soft tissues. Signs of infection were uncommon.

Four patients had reactions interpreted as hypersensitivity to metal. We identified three articles on biomechanical wear simulations. Devices were tested between 10 and 20 million cycles in axial loading, flexion/extension, and lateral bending. No device failures were reported. One study suggests such simulations may represent 50 or more years of wear in actual patients.

Conclusion: Cervical disc implants consistently produced polymeric and metallic debris, which was typically accompanied by inflammation. Hypersensitivity to metal may increase risk for device failure. Biomechanical simulations indicate that cervical disc implants may be durable beyond the currently reported length of clinical follow-up.

 

  • REFERENCES

  • 1 Anderson PA, Rouleau JP, Bryan VE et al. 2003; Wear analysis of the Bryan Cervical Disc prosthesis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 28 (20) S186-194
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Anderson PA, Rouleau JP, Toth JM et al. 2004; A comparison of simulator-tested and -retrieved cervical disc prostheses: invited submission from the Joint Section Meeting on Disorders of the Spine and Peripheral Nerves, March 2004. J Neurosurg Spine 1 (2) 202-210
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Cavanaugh DA, Nunley PD, Kerr 3rd EJ et al. 2009; Delayed hyper-reactivity to metal ions after cervical disc arthroplasty: a case report and literature review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34 (7) E262-265
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Guyer RD, Shellock J, MacLennan B et al. 2011; Early failure of metal-on-metal artificial disc prostheses associated with lymphocytic reaction: diagnosis and treatment experience in four cases. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 36 (7) E492-497
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Jensen WK, Anderson PA, Nel L et al. 2005; Bone ingrowth in retrieved Bryan Cervical Disc prostheses. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30 (22) 2497-2502
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Pitzen T, Kettler A, Drumm J et al. 2007; Cervical spine disc prosthesis: radiographic, biomechanical and morphological post mortal findings 12 weeks after implantation: a retrieval example. Eur Spine J 16 (7) 1015-1020
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Tumialan LM, Gluf WM. 2011; Progressive vertebral body osteolysis after cervical disc arthroplasty. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 36 (14) E973-978
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Wigfield CC, Gill SS, Nelson RJ et al. 2002; The new Frenchay artificial cervical joint: results from a two-year pilot study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 27 (22) 2446-2452
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Cummins BH, Robertson JT, Gill SS. 1998; Surgical experience with an implanted artificial cervical joint. J Neurosurg 88 (6) 943-948
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Coric D, Nunley PD, Guyer RD et al. 2011; Prospective, randomized, multicenter study of cervical arthroplasty: 269 patients from the Kineflex|C artificial disc investigational device exemption study with a minimum 2-year follow-up: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 15 (4) 348-358
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Hu N, Cunningham BW, McAfee PC et al. 2006; Porous coated motion cervical disc replacement: a biomechanical, histomorphometric, and biologic wear analysis in a caprine model. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31 (15) 1666-1673
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Food and Drug Administration. 2009 Summary of safety and effectiveness data, ProDiscTM-C total disc replacement, P070001, December 17, 2007. Available at: www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf7/P070001b.pdf
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Grupp TM, Meisel HJ, Cotton JA et al. 2010; Alternative bearing materials for intervertebral disc arthroplasty. Biomaterials 31 (3) 523-531
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar