Purpose of review Cervical disc replacement (CDR) is a surgical option for appropriately indicated patients, and high success rates have been reported in the literature. Complications and failures are often associated with patient indications or technical variables, and the goal of this review is to assist surgeons in understanding these factors. Recent findings Several investigations have been published in the last 5 years supporting the use of CDR in specific patient populations. CDR has been shown to be comparable or favorable to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion in several meta-analyses and mid-term follow-up studies. Summary CDR was developed as a technique to preserve motion following a decompression procedure while minimizing several of the complications associated with fusion and posterior cervical spine procedures. Though success with cervical fusion and posterior foraminotomy has been well documented in the literature, high rates of mid-and long-term complications have been clearly established. CDR has also been associated with several complications and challenges with regard to surgical technique, though improvements in implant design have lead to an increase in utilization. Several devices currently exist and vary in terms of material, design, and outcomes. This review paper discusses indications, surgical technique, and technical pearls and reviews the CDR devices currently available.

Background: Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) has comparable fusion rates and outcomes to the open approach, though many surgeons avoid the technique due to an initial learning curve. No current studies have examined the learning curve of MI-TLIF with respect to fluoroscopy time and exposure. Our objective with this retrospective review was to therefore use a repeatable mathematical model to evaluate the learning curve of MI-TLIF with a focus on fluoroscopy time and exposure. Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of single level, primary fusions performed by a single surgeon during his initial experience with minimally invasive spine surgery. Chronologic case number was plotted against variables of interest, and learning was identified as the point at which the instantaneous rate of change of a curve fit to the data set equaled the average rate of change of the data set. Results: One hundred nine cases were reviewed. Proficiency in operative time was achieved at 38 cases with the first 38 requiring a median of 137 minutes compared to 104 minutes for the latter 71 cases (P , .0001). Mastery of fluoroscopy use occurred at case 51. The median fluoroscopy time for the first 51 cases was 2.8 minutes, which dropped to 2.1 minutes for cases 52 to 109 (P , .0001). The complication rate plateaued after 43 cases, with 3 of 11 total complications occurring in the latter 76 cases. Conclusions: Our results demonstrate the most gradual learning occurred with respect to fluoroscopy time and exposure, and operative time improved the quickest. Level of Evidence: IV. Clinical Relevance: These findings may guide spine surgeon education and training in minimally invasive techniques, and help determine safe case loads for radiation exposure during the initial learning phase of the technique. The model used to identify the learning curve can also be applied to several fields and surgical techniques.

Study Design:Prospective randomized control trial.Objective:To investigate the role of cervical collars in postoperative care following 1- and 2-level instrumented anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF).Methods:The Cervical Spine Research Society Resident Fellow Grant funded this project. Fifty consecutive patients undergoing 1- or 2-level ACDF surgery were randomized into groups receiving either no brace or a cervical brace for 6 weeks postoperatively. Neck Disability Index scores were recorded preoperatively and at regular follow-up visits up to 1 year. Computed tomography scans were read 1 year postoperatively to determine fusion rates, and subsidence was measured as change in middle vertebral distance between initial postoperative and 6-month follow-up lateral cervical radiographs.Results:Twenty-two patients were in the no-brace group, and 22 patients were in the brace group at final follow-up, with an average age of 50 and 55 years, respectively. The no-brace group had a total of 32 operative levels, whereas the brace group had 38 operative levels. There was no statistically significant difference in 1-year postoperative Neck Disability Index scores between the brace (9.30) and no-brace (6.95) groups (P = .28), in 6-month subsidence of all operative levels between the brace (0.85 mm) and no-brace (0.79 mm) groups (P = .72), or in the proportion of fused levels between the brace (89%) and no-brace (97%) groups (P = .37).Conclusions:Our results suggest no advantage in wearing a cervical brace following 1- or 2-level ACDF surgery with respect to 1-year outcome scores, 1-year fusion rates, and 6-month subsidence.

Level 3.

Study Design:Retrospective cohort study.Objective:To compare perioperative characteristics of stand-alone cages and anterior cervical plates used for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF).Methods:We reviewed 40 adult patients who received a stand-alone cage for elective ACDF and matched them with 40 patients who received an anterior cervical plate. We statistically compared operative time, length of stay, proportion of ambulatory cases, overall complications necessitating a trip to the ED, readmission, or reoperation related to index procedure.Results:There were 21 women and 19 men in the plate cohort with average ages of 53 years ± 12 and 20 women and 20 men in the stand-alone group with an average age of 52 years ± 11. With no statistical difference in total number, the plate group experienced 4 short-term (within 90 days of discharge) complications, including 3 patients who visited the emergency department for dysphagia and 1 who visited the emergency department for severe back pain, while the stand-alone group experienced 0 complications. There was no significant difference in operative time between the stand-alone group (75.35 min) and the plate group (81.35 min; P = .37). There was a significant difference between the proportion of ambulatory cases in the stand-alone group (25) and the plate group (6; P < .0001).Conclusion:Our results demonstrate that stand-alone cages have fewer complications compared to anterior plating, with a lower trend of incidence of postoperative dysphagia. Stand-alone cages may offer the advantage of sending patients home ambulatory after ACDF surgery.