| REVIEW ARTICLE |
|
| Year : 2014 | Volume
: 1
| Issue : 4 | Page : 147-150 |
|
|
Long-term results of cervical arthroplasty
Patrick Fransen
Consultant Neurosurgeon and Head, Department of Neurosurgery, Brussels Neurosurgical Center, Parc Leopold Clinic, Brussels, Belgium
Correspondence Address:
Patrick Fransen
Consultant Neurosurgeon and Head, Department of Neurosurgery, Brussels Neurosurgical Center, Parc Leopold Clinic, Brussels
Belgium
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None
DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10039-1034
|
|
|
Although cervical disk replacement has been used for a decade, and despite a large number of implanted artificial disks, the cost effectiveness of this technique remains debated, and only few reports present follow-ups exceeding 2 years. This work focuses on cervical arthroplasty publications reporting a followup of more than 2 years. Patient selection, implant type and surgical technique seem to influence greatly the quality of the clinical and radiological results. Wear debris and occurrence of heterotopic ossifications around the implant are frequently reported. The progressive decrease in the range of motion of the prosthetic level observed in most long-term studies does not seem to have any influence on the clinical evolution. It seems reasonable to say that cervical disk prosthesis is not inferior to discectomy and fusion, probably slightly superior in terms of neck pain, and that these implants allow a short-term preservation of cervical mobility. Their efficacy in preventing adjacent segment disease is still being assessed and will determine the cost/effectiveness ratio of cervical disk replacement.
Abbreviations: FU: Follow-up; ACDF: Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion; TDR: Total disk replacement; HO: Heterotopic ossifications; ROM: Range of motion; NSAID: Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; PE: Polyethylene; ASD: Adjacent segment deterioration.
|
|
|
|
| [PDF]* |
|
 |
|
