Insertion of prosthetic total disc replacement after anterior decompression with aim of preserving normal range and type of intervertebral motion
Prevent complications associated with rigid arthrodesis and subsequent segmental loss of motion
Transmit axial load from vertebral body above 1 below
Shock absorption
Decreased perioperative morbidity
Instrumentation
Pseudarthorosis
Exposure
Bone graft morbidity
Postoperative immobilization
Early return to activities
IMAGING
General Features
Radiographic Findings
CT Findings
MR Findings
Imaging Recommendations
DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS
PATHOLOGY
General Features
Staging, Grading, & Classification
CLINICAL ISSUES
Presentation
Demographics
Natural History & Prognosis
Treatment
DIAGNOSTIC CHECKLIST
Image Interpretation Pearls
Selected References
Othman YA et al: Artificial disc replacement in spine surgery. Ann Transl Med. 7(Suppl 5):S170, 2019
MacDowall A et al: Artificial disc replacement versus fusion in patients with cervical degenerative disc disease with radiculopathy: 5-year outcomes from the National Swedish Spine Register. J Neurosurg Spine. 30(2):159-67, 2018
Petscavage-Thomas JM et al: Imaging current spine hardware: part 1, cervical spine and fracture fixation. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 203(2):394-405, 2014
Zechmeister I et al: Artificial total disc replacement versus fusion for the cervical spine: a systematic review. Eur Spine J. 20(2):177-84, 2011
Ahn PG et al: Changes in cervical range of motion and sagittal alignment in early and late phases after total disc replacement: radiographic follow-up exceeding 2 years. J Neurosurg Spine. 11(6):688-95, 2009
Cavanaugh DA et al: Delayed hyper-reactivity to metal ions after cervical disc arthroplasty: a case report and literature review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 34(7):E262-5, 2009
Faizan A et al: Do design variations in the artificial disc influence cervical spine biomechanics? A finite element investigation. Eur Spine J. 21 Suppl 5:S653-62, 2009
Phillips FM et al: Cervical disc replacement in patients with and without previous adjacent level fusion surgery: a prospective study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 34(6):556-65, 2009
Phillips FM et al: Effect of two-level total disc replacement on cervical spine kinematics. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 34(22):E794-9, 2009
Kim SW et al: Effects of a cervical disc prosthesis on maintaining sagittal alignment of the functional spinal unit and overall sagittal balance of the cervical spine. Eur Spine J. 17(1):20-9, 2008
Peng-Fei S et al: Cervical disc prosthesis replacement and interbody fusion: a comparative study. Int Orthop. 32(1):103-6, 2008
Nabhan A et al: Disc replacement using Pro-Disc C versus fusion: a prospective randomised and controlled radiographic and clinical study. Eur Spine J. 16(3):423-30, 2007
Mehren C et al: Heterotopic ossification in total cervical artificial disc replacement. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 31(24):2802-6, 2006
Bertagnoli R et al: Cervical total disc replacement, part two: clinical results. Orthop Clin North Am. 36(3):355-62, 2005
Sekhon LH et al: Artificial cervical disc replacement: principles, types and techniques. Neurol India. 53(4):445-50, 2005
Anderson PA et al: Intervertebral disc arthroplasty. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 29(23):2779-86, 2004
Anderson PA et al: Wear analysis of the Bryan cervical disc prosthesis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 28(20):S186-94, 2003
Goffin J et al: Intermediate follow-up after treatment of degenerative disc disease with the Bryan cervical disc prosthesis: single-level and bi-level. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 28(24):2673-8, 2003
Hallab N et al: Biomaterial optimization in total disc arthroplasty. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 28(20):S139-52, 2003
Sekhon LH: Cervical arthroplasty in the management of spondylotic myelopathy. J Spinal Disord Tech. 16(4):307-13, 2003
Eck JC et al: Biomechanical study on the effect of cervical spine fusion on adjacent-level intradiscal pressure and segmental motion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 27(22):2431-4, 2002
Insertion of prosthetic total disc replacement after anterior decompression with aim of preserving normal range and type of intervertebral motion
Prevent complications associated with rigid arthrodesis and subsequent segmental loss of motion
Transmit axial load from vertebral body above 1 below
Shock absorption
Decreased perioperative morbidity
Instrumentation
Pseudarthorosis
Exposure
Bone graft morbidity
Postoperative immobilization
Early return to activities
IMAGING
General Features
Radiographic Findings
CT Findings
MR Findings
Imaging Recommendations
DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS
PATHOLOGY
General Features
Staging, Grading, & Classification
CLINICAL ISSUES
Presentation
Demographics
Natural History & Prognosis
Treatment
DIAGNOSTIC CHECKLIST
Image Interpretation Pearls
Selected References
Othman YA et al: Artificial disc replacement in spine surgery. Ann Transl Med. 7(Suppl 5):S170, 2019
MacDowall A et al: Artificial disc replacement versus fusion in patients with cervical degenerative disc disease with radiculopathy: 5-year outcomes from the National Swedish Spine Register. J Neurosurg Spine. 30(2):159-67, 2018
Petscavage-Thomas JM et al: Imaging current spine hardware: part 1, cervical spine and fracture fixation. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 203(2):394-405, 2014
Zechmeister I et al: Artificial total disc replacement versus fusion for the cervical spine: a systematic review. Eur Spine J. 20(2):177-84, 2011
Ahn PG et al: Changes in cervical range of motion and sagittal alignment in early and late phases after total disc replacement: radiographic follow-up exceeding 2 years. J Neurosurg Spine. 11(6):688-95, 2009
Cavanaugh DA et al: Delayed hyper-reactivity to metal ions after cervical disc arthroplasty: a case report and literature review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 34(7):E262-5, 2009
Faizan A et al: Do design variations in the artificial disc influence cervical spine biomechanics? A finite element investigation. Eur Spine J. 21 Suppl 5:S653-62, 2009
Phillips FM et al: Cervical disc replacement in patients with and without previous adjacent level fusion surgery: a prospective study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 34(6):556-65, 2009
Phillips FM et al: Effect of two-level total disc replacement on cervical spine kinematics. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 34(22):E794-9, 2009
Kim SW et al: Effects of a cervical disc prosthesis on maintaining sagittal alignment of the functional spinal unit and overall sagittal balance of the cervical spine. Eur Spine J. 17(1):20-9, 2008
Peng-Fei S et al: Cervical disc prosthesis replacement and interbody fusion: a comparative study. Int Orthop. 32(1):103-6, 2008
Nabhan A et al: Disc replacement using Pro-Disc C versus fusion: a prospective randomised and controlled radiographic and clinical study. Eur Spine J. 16(3):423-30, 2007
Mehren C et al: Heterotopic ossification in total cervical artificial disc replacement. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 31(24):2802-6, 2006
Bertagnoli R et al: Cervical total disc replacement, part two: clinical results. Orthop Clin North Am. 36(3):355-62, 2005
Sekhon LH et al: Artificial cervical disc replacement: principles, types and techniques. Neurol India. 53(4):445-50, 2005
Anderson PA et al: Intervertebral disc arthroplasty. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 29(23):2779-86, 2004
Anderson PA et al: Wear analysis of the Bryan cervical disc prosthesis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 28(20):S186-94, 2003
Goffin J et al: Intermediate follow-up after treatment of degenerative disc disease with the Bryan cervical disc prosthesis: single-level and bi-level. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 28(24):2673-8, 2003
Hallab N et al: Biomaterial optimization in total disc arthroplasty. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 28(20):S139-52, 2003
Sekhon LH: Cervical arthroplasty in the management of spondylotic myelopathy. J Spinal Disord Tech. 16(4):307-13, 2003
Eck JC et al: Biomechanical study on the effect of cervical spine fusion on adjacent-level intradiscal pressure and segmental motion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 27(22):2431-4, 2002
STATdx includes over 200,000 searchable images, including x-ray, CT, MR, and ultrasound images. To access all images, please log in or subscribe.