Object: Cervical total disc replacement (TDR) was developed to address some of the shortcomings associated with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) by preserving motion at the treated level. To establish an evidence-based rationale for cervical TDR to serve as a viable alternative to ACDF, cervical arthroplasty must establish equivalent or superior clinical outcomes while maintaining motion. The authors report on 98 patients from a single investigational site involved in 3 separate prospective, randomized, controlled investigational device exemption multicenter trials comparing cervical arthroplasty to ACDF with a 2-6-year follow-up.
Methods: Patients with 1- and 2-level cervical disc disease producing radiculopathy and/or myelopathy were randomized prospectively under 3 separate investigational device exemption pivotal trials to undergo ACDF with plate or artificial disc placement. The 3 arthroplasty systems evaluated were the Bryan cervical disc, Kineflex/C disc, and Discover cervical disc. The patients were evaluated with pre- and postoperative serial neurological examinations, radiographs, and clinical outcome indices at 1, 3, 6, 12, 24, 36, 48, and 60 months.
Results: Ninety-eight patients were treated at the authors' single investigational site. Fifty-seven of these patients underwent cervical arthroplasty and 41 underwent ACDF. A minimum 24-month follow-up was available for 90 patients (92%; 53 in the combined arthroplasty group and 37 in the combined ACDF group) with a follow-up duration ranging from 24 to 67 months (mean 38 months). Clinical success, defined as a composite measure consisting of 5 separate components, was significantly higher in the combined arthroplasty group (85%) compared with the combined ACDF group (70%; p = 0.035). The Neck Disability Index and visual analog scale patient self-report measures were evaluated at 3-24-months follow-up, and all groups showed excellent clinical outcomes. All groups (Bryan, Kineflex/C, Discover, and ACDF) showed statistically significant improvement from the preoperative period to a minimum 2-year follow-up (p < 0.0001). Overall, angular motion was improved by 0.91° in the combined arthroplasty group and reduced by 7.8° in the combined ACDF group (p < 0.0001). In the ACDF group there was a fusion rate of 97% (36 of 37 cases). In the arthroplasty group there was a 5.6% incidence of bridging heterotopic ossification (3 cases). There were a total of 4 reoperations (7.5%) in the combined arthroplasty group with 1 (1.9%) at the adjacent level. There were 3 reoperations (8.1%) in the ACDF group, all at the adjacent level.
Conclusions: The prospective, intermediate-term (average follow-up > 3 years) results of cervical TDR at the authors' site are encouraging. Patients treated with the artificial discs showed significantly better clinical results, maintained motion at the treated level, and trended toward less adjacent-level disease.