A Rare Case of Wear Induced Complications after Cervical Disc Replacement

Clinical management of bone loss in cervical total disc arthroplasty: literature review and treatment recommendations

PURPOSE

Cervical total disc replacement (cTDR) has been established as an alternative treatment for degenerative cervical radiculopathy and myelopathy. While the rate of complications for cTDR is reasonably low, recent studies have focused on bone loss after cTDR. The purpose of this work is to develop a clinical management plan for cTDR patients with evidence of bone loss. To guide our recommendations, we undertook a review of the literature and aimed to determine: (1) how bone loss was identified/imaged, (2) whether pre- or intraoperative assessments of infection or histology were performed, and (3) what decision-making and revision strategies were employed.

METHODS

We performed a search of the literature according to PRISMA guidelines. Included studies reported the clinical performance of cTDR and identified instances of cervical bone loss.

RESULTS

Eleven case studies and 20 cohort studies were reviewed, representing 2073 patients with 821 reported cases of bone loss. Bone loss was typically identified on radiographs during routine follow-up or by computed tomography (CT) for patients presenting with symptoms. Assessments of infection as well as histological and/or explant assessment were sporadically reported. Across all reviewed studies, multiple mechanisms of bone loss were suspected, and severity and progression varied greatly. Many patients were reportedly asymptomatic, but others experienced symptoms like progressive pain and paresthesia.

CONCLUSION

Our findings demonstrate a critical gap in the literature regarding the optimal management of patients with bone loss following cTDR, and treatment recommendations based on our review are impractical given the limited amount and quality evidence available. However, based on the authors' extensive clinical experience, close follow-up of specific radiographic observations and serial radiographs to assess the progression/severity of bone loss and implant changes are recommended. CT findings can be used for clinical decision-making and further follow-up care. The pattern and rate of progression of bone loss, in concert with patient symptomatology, should determine whether non-operative or surgical intervention is indicated. Future studies involving implant retrieval, histopathological, and microbiological analysis for patients undergoing cTDR revision for bone loss are needed.

Heterotopic ossification, osteolysis and implant failure following cervical total disc replacement with the M6-C™ artificial disc

INTRODUCTION

A recent study reported a 34% mid-term revision rate after M6-C™ cervical total disc replacement (CTDR) for wear-related osteolysis. Here, we aim to investigate the prevalence, risk factors, and radiographic characteristics of periprosthetic bony changes and implant failure of the M6-C™ artificial disc.

METHODS

We retrospectively analysed radiographic (conventional X-ray, CT scan) and clinical outcomes (EQ-5D-5L, Neck Disability Index (NDI), and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for neck and arm pain) data collected during routine follow-up of patients who underwent CTDR with the M6-C™ between 2011 and 2015.

RESULTS

In total, 85 patients underwent CTDR with the M6-C™. Follow-up data were available for 43 patients (54% female, mean age 44 years) with 50 implants and a mean follow-up of 8.1 years (6.5-11 years). Implant failure with the presence of severe osteolysis was identified in 5 (12%) patients who were all male (p = 0.016) and implanted at the C5/6 level (p = 0.11). All failed implants required revision surgery. The overall prevalence of osteolysis was 44% (22/50 implants) and 34% (17/50 implants) for significant heterotopic ossification. Patients with high-grade osteolysis showed higher VAS arm pain (p = 0.05) and lower EQ-5D-VAS health VAS (p = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

We report a lower reoperation rate for failed M6-C™ implants than previously published, but confirmed that osteolysis and heterotopic ossification are common following CTDR with the M6-C™ and may be asymptomatic. Therefore, we strongly recommend ongoing clinical and radiographic monitoring after CTDR with the M6-C™, particularly for male patients implanted at the C5/6 level.

Observations of bony ongrowth and clinical fixation in two retrieved disc replacements

Total disc replacements utilize textured coatings to maximize bony ongrowth. However, the contribution of direct bony attachment to overall fixation for total disc replacements has not been reported. The goal of the present study was to document the extent of bony attachment to the surfaces of two clinically functional total disc replacements that were securely fixed at the time of revision. Two metal-and-polymeric disc replacements, one cervical and one lumbar, were evaluated following surgical retrieval. The cervical device was retrieved at 8 months and the lumbar device at 28 months post-operative. Both devices were reported well-fixed at the time of removal, with large bone masses attached to one endplate of each device. Visual inspections, non-destructive gravimetric measurements, and surface metrology were performed to assess fixation. These inspections suggested that both devices had been fixed at the time of removal with little in vivo mechanical damage, as surgical extraction damage was noted on both devices and provided imaging showed a lack of device migration. Devices were then embedded and sectioned to evaluate the bone-implant interface. High resolution photographs and contact microradiographs were taken to assess bony attachment. In contrast to initial analysis, these images revealed radiolucent gaps between the endplates and bone masses. Little direct contact between the bone and endplate surface was identified and the original surgical cuts were still visible. Both devices were clinically fixed at the time of removal and neither had complications associated with loosening. However, osseointegration was minimal in one of the devices and altogether absent from the other. The findings of the present study suggest that other factors may influence overall clinical fixation such as the surgical preparation of the vertebral bone or the surface roughness of the treated endplates. Despite the limitations of the present study, this information is unique to the current total disc replacement literature and the ongrowth and fixation of devices should be considered as a topic for future investigation.

The lexicon for periprosthetic bone loss versus osteolysis after cervical disc arthroplasty: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Periprosthetic bone loss is a common observation following arthroplasty. Recognizing and understanding the nature of bone loss is vital as it determines the subsequent performance of the device and the overall outcome. Despite its significance, the term "bone loss" is often misused to describe inflammatory osteolysis, a complication with vastly different clinical outcomes and treatment plans. Therefore, the goal of this review was to report major findings related to vertebral radiographic bone changes around cervical disc replacements, mitigate discrepancies in clinical reports by introducing uniform terminology to the field, and establish a precedence that can be used to identify the important nuances between these distinct complications.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was conducted following PRISMA guidelines, using the keywords "cervical," "disc replacement," "osteolysis," "bone loss," "radiograph," and "complications." A total of 23 articles met the inclusion criteria with the majority being retrospective or case reports.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies reported periprosthetic osteolysis in a total of 46 patients with onset ranging from 15-96 months after the index procedure. Reported causes included: metal hypersensitivity, infection, mechanical failure, and wear debris. Osteolysis was generally progressive and led to reoperation. Nine articles reported non-inflammatory bone loss in 527 patients (52.5%), typically within 3-6 months following implantation. The reported causes included: micromotion, stress shielding, and interrupted blood supply. With one exception, bone loss was reported to be non-progressive and had no effect on clinical outcome measures.

CONCLUSIONS

Non-progressive, early onset bone loss is a common finding after CDA and typically does not affect the reported short-term pain scores or lead to early revision. By contrast, osteolysis was less common, presenting more than a year post-operative and often accompanied by additional complications, leading to revision surgery. A greater understanding of the clinical significance is limited by the lack of long-term studies, inconsistent terminology, and infrequent use of histology and explant analyses. Uniform reporting and adoption of consistent terminology can mitigate some of these limitations. Executing these actionable items is critical to assess device performance and the risk of revision.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV

Diagnostic: individual cross-sectional studies with consistently applied reference standard and blinding.