Revision Surgeries at the Index Level After Cervical Disc Arthroplasty - A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic literature review on revision surgeries at the index level after cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) failure. METHODS: A systematic literature review was performed according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Prospective studies on patients who required a secondary surgery after CDA failure were included for analysis. The minimum follow-up for these studies was 5 years. RESULTS: Out of 864 studies in the original search group, a total of 20 studies were included. From a total of 4,087 patients, 161 patients required a reoperation at the index level. A total of 170 surgeries were performed, as some patients required multiple surgeries. The most common secondary procedures were anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) (68%, N = 61) and posterior cervical fusion (15.5%, N = 14), followed by other reoperation (13.3%, N = 12). The associated outcomes for those who required a revision surgery were rarely mentioned in the included literature. CONCLUSION: The long-term revision rate at the index level of failed CDA surgery was 3.9%, with a minimum 5-year follow-up. ACDF was the most commonly performed procedure to salvage a failed CDA. Some patients who required a new surgery after CDA failure may require a more extensive salvage procedure and even subsequent surgeries.

Circumferential Operations of the Cervical Spine.

Generally, a combined anterior and posterior cervical approach is associated with significant morbidity since it requires an extended operative time, greater intraoperative blood loss, and both anterior- and posterior-related surgical complications. However, there are some instances where a circumferential cervical fusion can be advantageous. Our objective is to discuss the indications for circumferential cervical spine procedures. A narrative review of the literature was performed. We include the indications for circumferential cervical approaches of the senior author (KDR). Indications for circumferential approaches include: (1) high-risk patients for pseudoarthrosis, (2) cervical deformity (e.g. , degenerative, posttraumatic, cervicothoracic kyphosis), (3) cervical spine metastases (especially those with multilevel involvement), (4) cervical spine infection, (5) unstable cervical trauma, (6) movement disorders and cerebral palsy, (7) Multiply operated patient (especially postlaminectomy kyphosis and patients with massive ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament), and when (8) early fusion is desirable. Circumferential procedures may be useful in many different cervical spine conditions requiring surgery. Despite its advantages, particularly with reducing the risk for pseudarthrosis, the benefits of a combined approach must be weighed against the risks associated with a dual approach. With appropriate preoperative planning, intraoperative decision-making, and surgical techniques, excellent clinical outcomes can be achieved.

Osteolysis after cervical disc arthroplasty.

PURPOSE: Cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) has become an increasingly popular treatment for cervical degenerative disc disease. One potential complication is osteolysis. However, current literature on this topic appears limited. The purpose of this study is to elucidate the incidence, aetiology, consequence, and subsequent treatment of this complication. METHODS: A systematic literature review was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines. Studies discussing the causes, incidence and management of osteolysis after a CA were included. RESULTS: A total of nine studies were included. We divided these studies into two groups: (1) large case series in which an active radiological evaluation for osteolysis was performed (total = six studies), (2) case report studies, which discussed symptomatic cases of osteolysis (total = three). The incidence of asymptomatic osteolysis ranged from 8 to 64%; however, only one study reported an incidence of < 10% and when this case was excluded the incidence ranged from 44 to 64%. Severe asymptomatic bone loss (exposure of the implant) was found in less than 4% of patients. Bone loss from osteolysis appeared to occur early (< 1 year) after surgery and late (> 1 year) as well. Symptomatic patients with osteolysis often required revision surgery. These patients required removal of implant and conversion to fusion in the majority of the cases. CONCLUSIONS: Osteolysis after CDA is common; however, the majority of cases have only mild or asymptomatic presentations that do not require revision surgery. The timing of osteolysis varies significantly. This may be due to differences in the aetiology of osteolysis.