Original Study
Comparison of M6-C and Mobi-C cervical total disc replacement for cervical degenerative disc disease in adults
Abstract
Background: Cervical total disc replacement (CTDR) is complicated by adjacent segment degeneration (ASD). Since non-physiological spine kinematics after CTDR was postulated to cause ASD, M6-C prosthesis has been developed to better replicate the natural kinematics of the intervertebral disc. This retrospective cohort study aims to compare the short-term outcomes between patients receiving either the M6-C or Mobi-C prostheses.
Methods: Patients who had refractory radiculopathy and/or myelopathy secondary to cervical degenerative disc disease and underwent CTDR between March 2004 and April 2017 were included. All CTDRs were performed by a single surgeon at a single institution. Self-reported clinical outcomes and radiological parameters were evaluated at baseline and final follow-up between March 2004 and April 2018.
Results: Sixty-two patients with greater than 1-year follow-up or who developed HO within 12 months of surgery, were included in the study. The mean radiological follow-up was 29.0 months (3–84 months), which includes 7 patients with less than 12 months follow-up who also developed HO. The changes in clinical and radiological measures were comparable between M6-C and Mobi-C prostheses. Thirty-seven out of 52 spinal segments (71.2%) and 10 out of 16 spinal segments (62.5%) developed HO in M6-C and Mobi-C group respectively. There was no significant difference in the rate of HO between the two groups.
Conclusions: No short-term differences were found in clinical or radiological outcomes between patients who received either the M6-C or Mobi-C prosthesis. Further randomized trials with a long-term follow-up period are warranted to determine the safety and efficacy of M6-C prosthesis.
Methods: Patients who had refractory radiculopathy and/or myelopathy secondary to cervical degenerative disc disease and underwent CTDR between March 2004 and April 2017 were included. All CTDRs were performed by a single surgeon at a single institution. Self-reported clinical outcomes and radiological parameters were evaluated at baseline and final follow-up between March 2004 and April 2018.
Results: Sixty-two patients with greater than 1-year follow-up or who developed HO within 12 months of surgery, were included in the study. The mean radiological follow-up was 29.0 months (3–84 months), which includes 7 patients with less than 12 months follow-up who also developed HO. The changes in clinical and radiological measures were comparable between M6-C and Mobi-C prostheses. Thirty-seven out of 52 spinal segments (71.2%) and 10 out of 16 spinal segments (62.5%) developed HO in M6-C and Mobi-C group respectively. There was no significant difference in the rate of HO between the two groups.
Conclusions: No short-term differences were found in clinical or radiological outcomes between patients who received either the M6-C or Mobi-C prosthesis. Further randomized trials with a long-term follow-up period are warranted to determine the safety and efficacy of M6-C prosthesis.
