Should patient eligibility criteria for cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) be expanded? A retrospective cohort analysis of relatively contraindicated patients undergoing CDA

Biomechanical Analysis of Hybrid Artificial Discs or Zero-Profile Devices for Treating 1-Level Adjacent Segment Degeneration in ACDF Revision Surgery

OBJECTIVE

Cervical hybrid surgery optimizes the use of cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) and zero-profile (ZOP) devices in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) but lacks uniform combination and biomechanical standards, especially in revision surgery (RS). This study aimed to investigate the biomechanical characteristics of adjacent segments of the different hybrid RS constructs in ACDF RS.

METHODS

An intact 3-dimensional finite element model generated a normal cervical spine (C2-T1). This model was modified to the primary C5-6 ACDF model. Three RS models were created to treat C4-5 adjacent segment degeneration through implanting cages plus plates (Cage-Cage), ZOP devices (ZOP-Cage), or Bryan discs (CDA-Cage). A 1.0-Nm moment was applied to the primary C5-6 ACDF model to generate total C2-T1 range of motions (ROMs). Subsequently, a displacement load was applied to all RS models to match the total C2-T1 ROMs of the primary ACDF model.

RESULTS

The ZOP-Cage model showed lower biomechanical responses including ROM, intradiscal pressure, maximum von Mises stress in discs, and facet joint force in adjacent segments compared to the Cage-Cage model. The CDA-Cage model exhibited the lowest biomechanical responses and ROM ratio at adjacent segments among all RS models, closely approached or lower than those in the primary ACDF model in most motion directions. Additionally, the maximum von Mises stress on the C3-4 and C6-7 discs increased in the Cage-Cage and ZOP-Cage models but decreased in the CDA-Cage model when compared to the primary ACDF model.

CONCLUSION

The CDA-Cage construct had the lowest biomechanical responses with minimal kinematic change of adjacent segments. ZOP-Cage is the next best choice, especially if CDA is not suitable. This study provides a biomechanical reference for clinical hybrid RS decision-making to reduce the risk of ASD recurrence.

Risk Factors for Reoperation Following Single-Level Cervical Disc Arthroplasty as Utilized in a Representative Sample of United States Clinical Practice: A Retrospective PearlDiver Study

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective Cohort.

OBJECTIVES

Most data regarding cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) outcomes are from highly controlled clinical trials with strict inclusion/exclusion criteria. This study aimed to identify risk factors for CDA reoperation, in "real world" clinical practice using a national insurance claims database.

METHODS

The PearlDiver database was queried for patients (2010-2020) who underwent a subsequent cervical procedure following a single-level CDA. Patients with less than 2 years follow-up were excluded. Primary outcome was to evaluate risk factors for reoperation. Secondary outcome was to evaluate the types of reoperations. Risk factors were compared using descriptive statistics. Multivariate regression analyses were used to ascertain the association among risk factors and reoperation.

RESULTS

Of 14,202 patients who met inclusion criteria, 916 (6.5%) underwent reoperation. Patients undergoing reoperation were slightly older with higher Elixhauser Comorbidity Index (ECI) scores, however both were not risk factors for reoperation. Patients with diagnoses such as smoking, myelopathy, inflammatory disorders, spinal deformity, trauma, or a history of prior cervical surgery were at greater risk for reoperation. No association was found between the year of index surgery and reoperation risk. The most common reoperation procedure was cervical fusion.

CONCLUSIONS

As billed for in the United States since 2010, CDA was associated with a 6.5% reoperation rate over a mean follow-up time of 5.3 years. Smoking, myelopathy, inflammatory disorders, spinal deformity, and a history of prior cervical surgery or trauma are risk factors for reoperation following CDA. Though patients who underwent a reoperation were older, age was not found to be an independent risk factor for a subsequent procedure.