Abstract
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.
![](http://media.springernature.com/m312/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs00586-012-2594-3/MediaObjects/586_2012_2594_Fig1_HTML.jpg)
![](http://media.springernature.com/m312/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs00586-012-2594-3/MediaObjects/586_2012_2594_Fig2_HTML.gif)
![](http://media.springernature.com/m312/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs00586-012-2594-3/MediaObjects/586_2012_2594_Fig3_HTML.gif)
![](http://media.springernature.com/m312/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs00586-012-2594-3/MediaObjects/586_2012_2594_Fig4_HTML.gif)
![](http://media.springernature.com/m312/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs00586-012-2594-3/MediaObjects/586_2012_2594_Fig5_HTML.gif)
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Mummaneni PV, Burkus JK, Haid RW, Traynelis VC, Zdeblick TA (2007) Clinical and radiographic analysis of cervical disc arthroplasty compared with allograft fusion: a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Neurosurg Spine 6(3):198–209. doi:10.3171/spi.2007.6.3.198
Lin CY, Kang H, Rouleau JP, Hollister SJ, Marca FL (2009) Stress analysis of the interface between cervical vertebrae end plates and the Bryan, Prestige LP, and ProDisc-C cervical disc prostheses: an in vivo image-based finite element study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34(15):1554–1560. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181aa643b
Gilad I, Nissan M (1985) Sagittal evaluation of elemental geometrical dimensions of human vertebrae. J Anat 143:115–120
Panjabi MM, Duranceau J, Goel V, Oxland T, Takata K (1991) Cervical human vertebrae. Quantitative three-dimensional anatomy of the middle and lower regions. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 16(8):861–869
Rockoff SD, Sweet E, Bleustein J (1969) The relative contribution of trabecular and cortical bone to the strength of human lumbar vertebrae. Calcif Tissue Res 3(2):163–175
Anderson PA, Rouleau JP (2004) Intervertebral disc arthroplasty. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 29(23):2779–2786
Eck JC, Humphreys SC, Lim TH, Jeong ST, Kim JG, Hodges SD, An HS (2002) Biomechanical study on the effect of cervical spine fusion on adjacent-level intradiscal pressure and segmental motion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 27(22):2431–2434. doi:10.1097/01.BRS.0000031261.66972.B1
Hilibrand AS, Carlson GD, Palumbo MA, Jones PK, Bohlman HH (1999) Radiculopathy and myelopathy at segments adjacent to the site of a previous anterior cervical arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 81(4):519–528
Bertagnoli R, Yue JJ, Shah RV, Nanieva R, Pfeiffer F, Fenk-Mayer A, Kershaw T, Husted DS (2005) The treatment of disabling single-level lumbar discogenic low back pain with total disc arthroplasty utilizing the prodisc prosthesis: a prospective study with 2-year minimum follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30(19):2230–2236
Leung C, Casey AT, Goffin J, Kehr P, Liebig K, Lind B, Logroscino C, Pointillart V (2005) Clinical significance of heterotopic ossification in cervical disc replacement: a prospective multicenter clinical trial. Neurosurgery 57(4):759–763 (discussion 759–763)
Parkinson JF, Sekhon LH (2005) Cervical arthroplasty complicated by delayed spontaneous fusion. Case report. J Neurosurg Spine 2(3):377–380. doi:10.3171/spi.2005.2.3.0377
Fong SY, DuPlessis SJ, Casha S, Hurlbert RJ (2006) Design limitations of Bryan disc arthroplasty. Spine J 6(3):233–241. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2006.01.007
Mehren C, Mayer HM (2005) Artificial cervical disc replacement—an update. Neurol India 53(4):440–444
Suchomel P, Jurak L, Benes V 3rd, Brabec R, Bradac O, Elgawhary S (2010) Clinical results and development of heterotopic ossification in total cervical disc replacement during a 4-year follow-up. Eur Spine J 19(2):307–315. doi:10.1007/s00586-009-1259-3
Sola S, Hebecker R, Mann S (2008) Bryan cervical disc prosthesis: 5 years follow-up. Paper presented at the Motion preservation technology 8th annual meeting, Miami, 06–09 May 2008
Link HD, McAfee PC, Pimenta L (2004) Choosing a cervical disc replacement. Spine J 4(6 Suppl):294S–302S. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2004.07.022
Gstoettner M, Heider D, Liebensteiner M, Bach CM (2008) Footprint mismatch in lumbar total disc arthroplasty. Eur Spine J 17(11):1470–1475. doi:10.1007/s00586-008-0780-0
Zhou SH, McCarthy ID, McGregor AH, Coombs RR, Hughes SP (2000) Geometrical dimensions of the lower lumbar vertebrae—analysis of data from digitised CT images. Eur Spine J 9(3):242–248
Cheng CC, Ordway NR, Zhang X, Lu YM, Fang H, Fayyazi AH (2007) Loss of cervical endplate integrity following minimal surface preparation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32(17):1852–1855. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e31811ece5a
Kim SW, Shin JH, Arbatin JJ, Park MS, Chung YK, McAfee PC (2008) 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):20–29. doi:10.1007/s00586-007-0459-y
Truumees E, Demetropoulos CK, Yang KH, Herkowitz HN (2003) Failure of human cervical endplates: a cadaveric experimental model. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 28(19):2204–2208. doi:10.1097/01.BRS.0000084881.11695.50
Lim TH, Kwon H, Jeon CH, Kim JG, Sokolowski M, Natarajan R, An HS, Andersson GB (2001) Effect of endplate conditions and bone mineral density on the compressive strength of the graft-endplate interface in anterior cervical spine fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 26(8):951–956
Steffen T, Tsantrizos A, Aebi M (2000) Effect of implant design and endplate preparation on the compressive strength of interbody fusion constructs. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 25(9):1077–1084
Penning L, Wilmink JT (1987) Rotation of the cervical spine. A CT study in normal subjects. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 12(8):732–738
Galbusera F, Anasetti F, Bellini CM, Costa F, Fornari M (2010) The influence of the axial, antero-posterior and lateral positions of the center of rotation of a ball-and-socket disc prosthesis on the cervical spine biomechanics. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 25(5):397–401. doi:10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2010.01.010
Conflict of interest
None.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Thaler, M., Hartmann, S., Gstöttner, M. et al. Footprint mismatch in total cervical disc arthroplasty. Eur Spine J 22, 759–765 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-012-2594-3
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-012-2594-3