Display options
Cite
Skovrlj B, Lee DH, Caridi JM, et al. Reoperations Following Cervical Disc Replacement. Asian Spine J. 2015;9(3):471-82doi: 10.4184/asj.2015.9.3.471.
Skovrlj, B., Lee, D. H., Caridi, J. M., & Cho, S. K. (2015). Reoperations Following Cervical Disc Replacement. Asian spine journal, 9(3), 471-82. https://doi.org/10.4184/asj.2015.9.3.471
Skovrlj, Branko, et al. "Reoperations Following Cervical Disc Replacement." Asian spine journal vol. 9,3 (2015): 471-82. doi: https://doi.org/10.4184/asj.2015.9.3.471
Skovrlj B, Lee DH, Caridi JM, Cho SK. Reoperations Following Cervical Disc Replacement. Asian Spine J. 2015 Jun;9(3):471-82. doi: 10.4184/asj.2015.9.3.471. Epub 2015 Jun 08. PMID: 26097667; PMCID: PMC4472600.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Asian Spine J. 2015 Jun;9(3):471-82. doi: 10.4184/asj.2015.9.3.471. Epub 2015 Jun 08.

Reoperations Following Cervical Disc Replacement.

Asian spine journal

Branko Skovrlj, Dong-Ho Lee, John Michael Caridi, Samuel Kang-Wook Cho

Affiliations

  1. Department of Neurosurgery, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.
  2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
  3. Department of Orthopaedics, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.

PMID: 26097667 PMCID: PMC4472600 DOI: 10.4184/asj.2015.9.3.471

Abstract

Cervical disc replacement (CDR) has emerged as an alternative surgical option to cervical arthrodesis. With increasing numbers of patients and longer follow-ups, complications related to the device and/or aging spine are growing, leaving us with a new challenge in the management and surgical revision of CDR. The purpose of this study is to review the current literature regarding reoperations following CDR and to discuss about the approaches and solutions for the current and future potential complications associated with CDR. The published rates of reoperation (mean, 1.0%; range, 0%-3.1%), revision (mean, 0.2%; range, 0%-0.5%), and removal (mean, 1.2%; range, 0%-1.9%) following CDR are low and comparable to the published rates of reoperation (mean, 1.7%; range; 0%-3.4%), revision (mean, 1.5%; range, 0%-4.7%), and removal (mean, 2.0%; range, 0%-3.4%) following cervical arthrodesis. The surgical interventions following CDR range from the repositioning to explantation followed by fusion or the reimplantation to posterior foraminotomy or fusion. Strict patient selection, careful preoperative radiographic review and surgical planning, as well as surgical technique may reduce adverse events and the need for future intervention. Minimal literature and no guidelines exist for the approaches and techniques in revision and for the removal of implants following CDR. Adherence to strict indications and precise surgical technique may reduce the number of reoperations, revisions, and removals following CDR. Long-term follow-up studies are needed, assessing the implant survivorship and its effect on the revision and removal rates.

Keywords: Arthroplasty; Cervical vertebra; Complications; Intervertebral disc; Options; Reoperations; Spine

References

  1. Neurosurg Focus. 2004 Dec 15;17 (6):E14 - PubMed
  2. Eur Spine J. 2012 Apr;21(4):674-80 - PubMed
  3. Spine J. 2009 Apr;9(4):275-86 - PubMed
  4. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012 Mar 15;37(6):445-51 - PubMed
  5. Neurosurgery. 2002 Sep;51(3):840-5; discussion 845-7 - PubMed
  6. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012 Oct 15;37(22 Suppl):S52-64 - PubMed
  7. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008 May 20;33(12):1305-12 - PubMed
  8. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009 Jan 15;34(2):101-7 - PubMed
  9. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1989 Oct;14(10):1046-50 - PubMed
  10. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011 Aug 1;36(17):E1126-33 - PubMed
  11. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011 Nov 16;93(22):e132(1-4) - PubMed
  12. J Neurosurg Spine. 2006 Feb;4(2):98-105 - PubMed
  13. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008 Nov;90(11):2354-64 - PubMed
  14. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003 Feb;85-A(2):259-65 - PubMed
  15. Neurosurg Focus. 2004 Sep 15;17 (3):E8 - PubMed
  16. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1999 Nov 1;24(21):2224-8 - PubMed
  17. J Neurosurg Spine. 2007 Mar;6(3):198-209 - PubMed
  18. Spine J. 2008 Sep-Oct;8(5):711-6 - PubMed
  19. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009 Sep 1;34(19):2001-7 - PubMed
  20. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012 May 1;37(10):E624-8 - PubMed
  21. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2007 Aug;20(6):468-72 - PubMed
  22. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011 Sep 21;93(18):1684-92 - PubMed
  23. PLoS One. 2012;7(8):e43407 - PubMed
  24. Eur Spine J. 2011 Feb;20(2):177-84 - PubMed
  25. J Neurosurg Spine. 2012 Mar;16(3):216-28 - PubMed
  26. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1993 Sep;75(9):1298-307 - PubMed
  27. Neurosurgery. 2005 Oct;57(4):759-63; discussion 759-63 - PubMed
  28. Neurosurg Focus. 2004 Sep 15;17(3):E5 - PubMed
  29. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2003 Aug;16(4):314-23 - PubMed
  30. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004 Dec 1;29(23):2779-86 - PubMed
  31. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013 Dec 15;38(26):2223-6 - PubMed
  32. Spine J. 2013 Sep;13(9):1048-54 - PubMed
  33. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011 Jun 15;36(14):E973-8 - PubMed
  34. Spine J. 2010 Dec;10(12):1043-8 - PubMed
  35. Surg Neurol Int. 2012;3(Suppl 3):S216-24 - PubMed
  36. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2007 Feb;20(1):89-92 - PubMed
  37. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013 Dec 15;38(26):2227-39 - PubMed
  38. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004 Dec 15;29(24):2809-14 - PubMed
  39. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2004 Apr;17 (2):79-85 - PubMed
  40. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009 Apr 1;34(7):E262-5 - PubMed
  41. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2007 Oct;20(7):481-91 - PubMed
  42. Orthop Surg. 2010 May;2(2):86-93 - PubMed
  43. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012 Jun 1;37(13):E814-6 - PubMed
  44. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003 Dec 15;28(24):2673-8 - PubMed
  45. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011 Apr 1;36(7):E492-7 - PubMed
  46. J Neurosurg Spine. 2011 Oct;15(4):348-58 - PubMed
  47. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2010 Feb;23(1):1-8 - PubMed
  48. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005 May 15;30(10):1165-72 - PubMed

Publication Types