Sinan KARACAA, Ahmet Onur AKPOLATA, Ahmet OZTERMELİA, Mehmet Nuri ERDEMB, Mehmet AYDOGANB

Discrepancy between cervical disc prostheses and anatomical cervical dimensions

Objective: The aim of this study was to assess appropriateness of the sizes of available cervical discprostheses based on tomographic measurement of human cervical vertebrae.Methods: The anatomic dimensions of the C3eC7 segments were measured on 50 patients (age range26e47 years) with computerized tomography scan and compared with the sizes of the popular cervicaltotal disc prostheses (CTDP) at the market [Bryan (Medtronic), Prodisc-C (Synthes), Prestige LP (Medtronic), Discover (DePuy)]. The mediolateral and anteriorposterior diameters of the upper and lowerendplates were measured with a digital measuring system.Results: Overall, 43.7% of the largest implant footprints were smaller in the anterior-posterior diameterand 42.6% in the mediolateral diameter were smaller than cervical endplate measurements. Discrepancyof the level C5/C6 and C6/C7 was calculated as 56.2% at the anteroposterior diameter and 43.8% at thecenter of mediolateral diameter.Conclusion: Large disparity has been found between the sizes of devices and cervical anatomic data.Companies that produce CTDP should take care of the anatomical dimensions and generate differentsizes of CTDP. Spine surgeon should be familiar with the size mismatch in CTDP that may affect theclinical and radiological outcome of the surgery.© 2016 Publishing services by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Turkish Association of Orthopaedics andTraumatology. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

___

GofŞn J, Geusens E, Vantomme N, et al. Long-term follow-up after interbody fusion of the cervical spine. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2004;17:79e85.

GofŞn J, Van Calenbergh F, van Loon 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). 2003;28:2673e2678.

Mummaneni PV, Haid RW. The future in the care of the cervical spine: inter- body fusion and arthroplasty. Invited submission from the Joint Section Meeting on Disorders of the Spine and Peripheral Nerves, March 2004. J Neurosurg Spine. 2004;1:155e159.

WigŞeld C, Gill S, Nelson R, Langdon I, Metcalf N, Robertson J. Influence of an artiŞcial cervical joint compared with fusion on adjacent-level motion in the treatment of degenerative cervical disc disease. J Neurosurg. 2002;96(1 Suppl.): e21.

Lin CY, Kang H, Rouleau JP, Hollister SJ, Marca FL. 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-basedŞnite element study. Spine (Phila BRS.0b013e3181aa643b. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/

Fong SY, DuPlessis SJ, Casha S, Hurlbert RJ. Design limitations of Bryan disc arthroplasty. Spine J. 2006;6:233e241. van Ooij A, Oner FC, Verbout AJ. Complications of artiŞcial disc replacement: a report of 27 patients with the SB Charit e disc. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2003;16: e383.

Cao JM, Zhang YZ, Shen Y, Ding WY. Complications of Bryan cervical disc replacement. Orthop Surg. 2010;2:86e93.

Pimenta L, McAfee PC, Cappuccino A, Bellera FP, Link HD. Clinical experience with the new artiŞcial cervical PCM (Cervitech) disc. Spine J. 2004;4:315Se321S.

Sasso RC, Smucker JD, Hacker RJ, Heller JG. Clinical outcomes of BRYAN cervical disc arthroplasty: a prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter trial with month follow- up. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2007;20:481e491.

Murrey D, Janssen M, Delamarter R, et al. Results of the prospective, ran- domized, con- trolled multicenter Food and Drug Administration investiga- tional device exemption study of the ProDisc-C total disc replacement versus anterior discectomy and fusion for the treatment of 1-level symptomatic cer- vical disc disease. Spine J. 2009;9:275e286.

Bertagnoli R. Complications and rescue strategies in TDR procedures. In: th Annual Meeting of the North American Spine Society (NASS). 2005. Phil- adelphia, PA.

Zhou SH, McCarthy ID, McGregor AH, Coombs RR, Hughes SP. Geometrical dimensions of the lower lumbar vertebrae analysis of data from digitised CT images. Eur Spine J. 2000;9(3):242e248.

Cheng CC, Ordway NR, Zhang X, Lu YM, Fang H, Fayyazi AH. Loss of cervical endplate integrity following minimal surface preparation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). ;32(17):1852e1855.

Steffen T, Tsantrizos A, Aebi M. Effect of implant design and endplate prepa- ration on the compressive strength of interbody fusion constructs. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25(9):1077e1084.

Kim MK, Kwak DS, Park CK, et al. Quantitative anatomy of the endplate of the middle and lower cervical vertebrae in Koreans. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007;32: E376eE381.

Thaler M, Hartmann S, GstEURottner M, Lechner R, Gabl M, Bach C. Footprint mismatch in total cervical disc arthroplasty. Eur Spine J. 2013;22:759e765.

Dong L, Tan MS, Yan QH, et al. Footprint mismatch of cervical disc prostheses with Chinese cervical anatomic dimensions. Chin Med J (Engl). 2015 Jan ;128(2):197e202. http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0366-6999.149200.