Cervical disc arthroplasty: What we know in 2020 and a literature review

Jun Jae Shin, Kwang Ryeol Kim, Dong Wuk Son, Dong Ah Shin, Seong Yi, Keung Nyun Kim, Do Heum Yoon, Yoon Ha, K. Daniel Riew

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

8 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) is a safe and effective option to improve clinical outcomes (e.g., NDI, VAS, and JOA) in degenerative cervical disc disease and compressive myelopathy. CDA’s two main purported benefits have been that it maintains physiologic motion and thereby minimizes the biomechanical stresses placed on adjacent segments as compared to an ACDF. CDA might reduce the degeneration of adjacent segments, and the need for adjacent-level surgery. Reoperation rates of CDA have been reported to range from 1.8% to 5.4%, with a minimum 5-year follow-up. As the number of CDA procedures performed continues to increase, the need for revision surgery is also likely to increase. When performed skillfully in appropriate patients, CDA is an effective surgical technique to optimize clinical outcomes and radiological results. This review may assist surgical decision-making and enable a more effective and safer implementation of cervical arthroplasty for cervical degenerative disease.

Original languageEnglish
JournalJournal of Orthopaedic Surgery
Volume29
Issue number1_suppl
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2021

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
The authors wish to thank Prof. Sang Hyun Han for his contributions in drafting the manuscript and revising it for important intellectual content. The authors thank all of the subjects who participated in the study, the support staff, and the research coordinator staff. The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Publisher Copyright:
© The Author(s) 2021.

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Surgery

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Cervical disc arthroplasty: What we know in 2020 and a literature review'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this