Footprint mismatch in total cervical disc arthroplasty

• Published in: European spine journal 2013-04, Vol.22 (4), p.759-765
• Main Authors: Thaler, Martin, Hartmann, Sebastian, Gstöttner, Michaela, Lechner, Ricarda, Gabl, Michael, Bach, Christian
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Cervical Vertebrae - diagnostic imaging; Cervical Vertebrae - surgery; Female; Humans; Imaging, Three-Dimensional; Intervertebral Disc - diagnostic imaging; Intervertebral Disc - surgery; Male; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Middle Aged; Neurosurgery; Original; Original Article; Prostheses and Implants; Prosthesis Design; Radiculopathy - surgery; Spinal Cord Diseases - surgery; Surgical Orthopedics; Tomography, X-Ray Computed; Total Disc Replacement - instrumentation; Total Disc Replacement - methods; Treatment Outcome
• ISSN: 0940-6719; 1432-0932
• DOI: 10.1007/s00586-012-2594-3

Purpose Cervical disc arthroplasty has become a commonplace surgery for the treatment of cervical radiculopathy and myelopathy. Most manufacturers derive their implant dimensions from early published cadaver studies. Ideal footprint match of the prosthesis is essential for good surgical outcome. Methods We measured the dimensions of cervical vertebrae from computed tomography (CT) scans and to assess the accuracy of match achieved with the most common cervical disc prostheses [Bryan (Medtronic), Prestige LP (Medtronic), Discover (DePuy) Prodisc-C (Synthes)]. A total of 192 endplates in 24 patients (56.3 years) were assessed. The anterior–posterior and mediolateral diameters of the superior and inferior endplates were measured with a digital measuring system. Results Overall, 53.5 % of the largest device footprints were smaller in the anterior–posterior diameter and 51.1 % in the mediolateral diameter were smaller than cervical endplate diameters. For levels C5/C6 and C6/C7 an inappropriate size match was noted in 61.9 % as calculated from the anteroposterior diameter. Mismatch at the center mediolateral diameter was noted in 56.8 %. Of the endplates in the current study up to 58.1 % of C5/C6 and C6/C7, and up to 45.3 % of C3/C4 and C4/C5 were larger than the most frequently implanted cervical disc devices. Conclusion Surgeons and manufacturers should be aware of the size mismatch in currently available cervical disc prostheses, which may endanger the safety and efficacy of the procedure. Undersizing the prosthetic device may lead to subsidence, loosening, heterotopic ossification and biomechanical failure caused by an incorrect center of rotation and load distribution, affecting the facet joints.