1. Van Eck CF, Regan C, Donaldson WF, Kang JD, Lee JY. The revision rate and occurrence of adjacent segment disease after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a study of 672 consecutive patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2014 39:2143–2147. PMID:
25271512.
2. Ahn SS, So WS, Ku MG, Kim SH, Kim DW, Lee BH. Radiologic findings and risk factors of adjacent segment degeneration after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a retrospective matched cohort study with 3-year follow-up using MRI. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 2016 59:129–136. PMID:
26962418.
3. Elsawaf A, Mastronardi L, Roperto R, Bozzao A, Caroli M, Ferrante L. Effect of cervical dynamics on adjacent segment degeneration after anterior cervical fusion with cages. Neurosurg Rev 2009 32:215–224. PMID:
18846395.
4. Guan T, Hu Z, Xiu L, Li N, Jin Q. Effect of cervical disc arthroplasty and anterior cervical decompression and fusion on adjacent segment degeneration. Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi 2014 28:1100–1105. PMID:
25509774.
5. Lundine KM, Davis G, Rogers M, Staples M, Quan G. Prevalence of adjacent segment disc degeneration in patients undergoing anterior cervical discectomy and fusion based on pre-operative MRI findings. J Clin Neurosci 2014 21:82–85. PMID:
24035205.
6. Matsumoto M, Okada E, Ichihara D, et al. Anterior cervical decompression and fusion accelerates adjacent segment degeneration: comparison with asymptomatic volunteers in a ten-year magnetic resonance imaging follow-up study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2010 35:36–43. PMID:
20023606.
7. Park JY, Kim KH, Kuh SU, Chin DK, Kim KS, Cho YE. What are the associative factors of adjacent segment degeneration after anterior cervical spine surgery?: comparative study between anterior cervical fusion and arthroplasty with 5-year follow-up MRI and CT. Eur Spine J 2013 22:1078–1089. PMID:
23242622.
8. Helgeson MD, Bevevino AJ, Hilibrand AS. Update on the evidence for adjacent segment degeneration and disease. Spine J 2013 13:342–351. PMID:
23420004.
9. Hilibrand AS, Robbins M. Adjacent segment degeneration and adjacent segment disease: the consequences of spinal fusion? Spine J 2004 4(6 Suppl): 190S–194S. PMID:
15541666.
10. Gornet MF, Lanman TH, Burkus JK, et al. Cervical disc arthroplasty with the Prestige LP disc versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, at 2 levels: results of a prospective, multicenter randomized controlled clinical trial at 24 months. J Neurosurg Spine 2017 26:653–667. PMID:
28304237.
12. Phillips FM, Geisler FH, Gilder KM, Reah C, Howell KM, McAfee PC. Long-term outcomes of the US FDA IDE Prospective, Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial comparing PCM cervical disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2015 40:674–683. PMID:
25955086.
13. Phillips FM, Lee JY, Geisler FH, et al. A prospective, randomized, controlled clinical investigation comparing PCM cervical disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. 2-year results from the US FDA IDE clinical trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2013 38:E907–E918. PMID:
23591659.
14. Sasso RC, Anderson PA, Riew KD, Heller JG. Results of cervical arthroplasty compared with anterior discectomy and fusion: four-year clinical outcomes in a prospective, randomized controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2011 93:1684–1692. PMID:
21938372.
15. Sasso RC, Smucker JD, Hacker RJ, Heller JG. Clinical outcomes of BRYAN cervical disc arthroplasty: a prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter trial with 24-month follow-up. J Spinal Disord Tech 2007 20:481–491. PMID:
17912124.
16. Sasso WR, Smucker JD, Sasso MP, Sasso RC. Long-term clinical outcomes of cervical disc arthroplasty: a prospective, randomized, controlled trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2016 6 21 PMID:
10.1097/BRS.0000000000001746. [Epub].
17. Sasso WR, Smucker JD, Sasso MP, Sasso RC. Long-term clinical outcomes of cervical disc arthroplasty: a prospective, randomized, controlled trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2017 42:209–216. PMID:
28207654.
18. Sundseth J, Fredriksli OA, Kolstad F, et al. The Norwegian Cervical Arthroplasty Trial (NORCAT): 2-year clinical outcome after single-level cervical arthroplasty versus fusion-a prospective, single-blinded, randomized, controlled multicenter study. Eur Spine J 2017 26:1225–1235. PMID:
28012081.
19. Buttner-Janz K. Optimal minimally traumatic approach for the SB Charite Artificial Disc. Eur Spine J 2002 11(Suppl 2): S111–S114. PMID:
12384731.
20. Cinotti G, David T, Postacchini F. Results of disc prosthesis after a minimum follow-up period of 2 years. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1996 21:995–1000. PMID:
8726204.
21. David T. Long-term results of one-level lumbar arthroplasty: minimum 10-year follow-up of the CHARITE artificial disc in 106 patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2007 32:661–666. PMID:
17413471.
22. Griffith SL, Shelokov AP, Buttner-Janz K, LeMaire JP, Zeegers WS. A multicenter retrospective study of the clinical results of the LINK SB Charité intervertebral prosthesis: the initial European experience. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1994 19:1842–1849. PMID:
7973983.
23. Szpalski M, Gunzburg R, Mayer M. Spine arthroplasty: a historical review. Eur Spine J 2002 11(Suppl 2): S65–S84. PMID:
12384726.
24. Wigfield CC, Gill SS, Nelson RJ, Metcalf NH, Robertson JT. The new Frenchay artificial cervical joint: results from a two-year pilot study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2002 27:2446–2452. PMID:
12435973.
25. Goffin J, Casey A, Kehr P, Liebig K, Lind B, Logroscino C, Pointillart V, Van Calenbergh F, van Loon J. Preliminary clinical experience with the Bryan cervical disc prosthesis. Neurosurgery 2002 51:840–845. PMID:
12188968.
26. Yoon DH, Yi S, Shin HC, Kim KN, Kim SH. Clinical and radiological results following cervical arthroplasty. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2006 148:943–950. PMID:
16791434.
27. Pickett GE, Mitsis DK, Sekhon LH, Sears WR, Duggal N. Effects of a cervical disc prosthesis on segmental and cervical spine alignment. Neurosurg Focus 2004 17:E5.
28. Fong SY, DuPlessis SJ, Casha S, Hurlbert RJ. Design limitations of Bryan disc arthroplasty. Spine J 2006 6:233–241. PMID:
16651216.
29. Johnson JP, Lauryssen C, Cambron HO, et al. Sagittal alignment and the Bryan cervical artificial disc. Neurosurg Focus 2004 17:E14PMID:
15636571.
30. Goffin 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 28:2673–2678. PMID:
14673368.
31. Pickett GE, Sekhon LH, Sears WR, Duggal N. Complications with cervical arthroplasty. J Neurosurg Spine 2006 4:98–105. PMID:
16506475.
32. Murrey DB, Janssen ME, Odum SM, Gottlieb JR, Spector LR, Darden BV. Two-year results of a randomized controlled clinical trial comparing ProDisc-C and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. SAS J 2008 2:76–85. PMID:
25802606.
33. Jaramillo-de la Torre JJ, Grauer JN, Yue JJ. Update on cervical disc arthroplasty: where are we and where are we going? Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 2008 1:124–130. PMID:
19468885.
34. Kim SW, Paik SH, Castro PA, et al. Analysis of factors that may influence range of motion after cervical disc arthroplasty. Spine J 2010 10:683–688. PMID:
20537960.
35. Snyder JT, Tzermiadianos MN, Ghanayem AJ, et al. Effect of uncovertebral joint excision on the motion response of the cervical spine after total disc replacement. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2007 32:2965–2969. PMID:
18091488.
36. Bono CM, Ghiselli G, Gilbert TJ, et al. An evidence-based clinical guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of cervical radiculopathy from degenerative disorders. Spine J 2011 11:64–72. PMID:
21168100.
37. Mummaneni PV, Burkus JK, Haid RW, Traynelis VC, Zdeblick TA. Clinical and radiographic analysis of cervical disc arthroplasty compared with allograft fusion: a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Neurosurg Spine 2007 6:198–209. PMID:
17355018.
38. Murrey D, Janssen M, Delamarter R, et al. Results of the prospective, randomized, controlled multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study of the ProDisc-C total disc replacement versus anterior discectomy and fusion for the treatment of 1-level symptomatic cervical disc disease. Spine J 2009 9:275–286. PMID:
18774751.
39. Davis RJ, Nunley PD, Kim KD, et al. Two-level total disc replacement with Mobi-C cervical artificial disc versus anterior discectomy and fusion: a prospective, randomized, controlled multicenter clinical trial with 4-year follow-up results. J Neurosurg Spine 2015 22:15–25. PMID:
25380538.
40. Radcliff K, Coric D, Albert T. Five-year clinical results of cervical total disc replacement compared with anterior discectomy and fusion for treatment of 2-level symptomatic degenerative disc disease: a prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter investigational device exemption clinical trial. J Neurosurg Spine 2016 25:213–224. PMID:
27015130.
41. Pimenta L, McAfee PC, Cappuccino A, Cunningham BW, Diaz R, Coutinho E. Superiority of multilevel cervical arthroplasty outcomes versus single-level outcomes: 229 consecutive PCM prostheses. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2007 32:1337–1344. PMID:
17515823.
42. Huppert J, Beaurain J, Steib JP, et al. Comparison between single- and multi-level patients: clinical and radiological outcomes 2 years after cervical disc replacement. Eur Spine J 2011 20:1417–1426. PMID:
21336970.
43. Mehren C, Heider F, Siepe CJ, et al. Clinical and radiological outcome at 10 years of follow-up after total cervical disc replacement. Eur Spine J 2017 7 04 PMID:
10.1007/s00586-017-5204-6. [Epub].
44. Ryu KS, Heo HY, Lee SJ, Lee KY, Park CK. Prognostic factors related to motion dynamics following cervical arthroplasty with a bryan disc: average 2-year follow-up. SAS J 2008 2:86–91. PMID:
25802607.
45. Ryu KS, Park CK, Jun SC, Huh HY. Radiological changes of the operated and adjacent segments following cervical arthroplasty after a minimum 24-month follow-up: comparison between the Bryan and Prodisc-C devices. J Neurosurg Spine 2010 13:299–307. PMID:
20809721.
46. Xia XP, Chen HL, Cheng HB. Prevalence of adjacent segment degeneration after spine surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2013 38:597–608. PMID:
22986837.
47. Ueda H, Huang RC, Lebl DR. Iatrogenic contributions to cervical adjacent segment pathology: review article. HSS J 2015 11:26–30. PMID:
25737665.
48. Weinhoffer SL, Guyer RD, Herbert M, Griffith SL. Intradiscal pressure measurements above an instrumented fusion: a cadaveric study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1995 20:526–531. PMID:
7604320.
49. Park P, Garton HJ, Gala VC, Hoff JT, McGillicuddy JE. Adjacent segment disease after lumbar or lumbosacral fusion: review of the literature. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2004 29:1938–1944. PMID:
15534420.
50. Rahm MD, Hall BB. Adjacent-segment degeneration after lumbar fusion with instrumentation: a retrospective study. J Spinal Disord 1996 9:392–400. PMID:
8938607.
51. Lee MJ, Dettori JR, Standaert CJ, Brodt ED, Chapman JR. The natural history of degeneration of the lumbar and cervical spines: a systematic review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2012 37(22 Suppl): S18–S30. PMID:
22872220.
52. Yue WM, Brodner W, Highland TR. Long-term results after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with allograft and plating: a 5- to 11-year radiologic and clinical follow-up study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2005 30:2138–2144. PMID:
16205338.
53. Saavedra-Pozo FM, Deusdara RA, Benzel EC. Adjacent segment disease perspective and review of the literature. Ochsner J 2014 14:78–83. PMID:
24688337.
54. Nunley PD, Jawahar A, Cavanaugh DA, Gordon CR, Kerr EJ 3rd, Utter PA. Symptomatic adjacent segment disease after cervical total disc replacement: reexamining the clinical and radiological evidence with established criteria. Spine J 2013 13:5–12. PMID:
23318108.
55. Kelly MP, Mok JM, Frisch RF, Tay BK. Adjacent segment motion after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion versus Prodisc-c cervical total disk arthroplasty: analysis from a randomized, controlled trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2011 36:1171–1179. PMID:
21217449.
56. Maldonado CV, Paz RD, Martin CB. Adjacent-level degeneration after cervical disc arthroplasty versus fusion. Eur Spine J 2011 20(Suppl 3): 403–407.
57. Coric D, Nunley PD, Guyer RD, et al. Prospective, randomized, multicenter study of cervical arthroplasty: 269 patients from the Kineflex|C artificial disc investigational device exemption study with a minimum 2-year follow-up: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 2011 15:348–358. PMID:
21699471.
58. Zhu Y, Zhang B, Liu H, Wu Y, Zhu Q. Cervical disc arthroplasty versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for incidence of symptomatic adjacent segment disease: a meta-analysis of prospective randomized controlled trials. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2016 41:1493–1502. PMID:
26926472.
59. DiAngelo DJ, Roberston JT, Metcalf NH, McVay BJ, Davis RC. Biomechanical testing of an artificial cervical joint and an anterior cervical plate. J Spinal Disord Tech 2003 16:314–323. PMID:
12902946.
60. Wigfield C, Gill S, Nelson R, Langdon I, Metcalf N, Robertson J. Influence of an artificial cervical joint compared with fusion on adjacent-level motion in the treatment of degenerative cervical disc disease. J Neurosurg 2002 96(1 Suppl): 17–21. PMID:
11795709.
61. Cunningham BW, Hu N, Zorn CM, McAfee PC. Biomechanical comparison of single- and two-level cervical arthroplasty versus arthrodesis: effect on adjacent-level spinal kinematics. Spine J 2010 10:341–349. PMID:
20362252.
62. Auerbach JD, Anakwenze OA, Milby AH, Lonner BS, Balderston RA. Segmental contribution toward total cervical range of motion: a comparison of cervical disc arthroplasty and fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2011 36:E1593–E1599. PMID:
21508886.
63. Verma K, Gandhi SD, Maltenfort M, et al. Rate of adjacent segment disease in cervical disc arthroplasty versus single-level fusion: meta-analysis of prospective studies. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2013 38:2253–2257. PMID:
24335631.
64. Yi S, Shin DA, Kim KN, et al. The predisposing factors for the heterotopic ossification after cervical artificial disc replacement. Spine J 2013 13:1048–1054. PMID:
23541453.
65. Malham GM, Parker RM, Ellis NJ, Chan PG, Varma D. Cervical artificial disc replacement with ProDisc-C: clinical and radiographic outcomes with long-term follow-up. J Clin Neurosci 2014 21:949–953. PMID:
24417795.
66. Zigler JE, Delamarter R, Murrey D, Spivak J, Janssen M. ProDisc-C and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion as surgical treatment for single-level cervical symptomatic degenerative disc disease: five-year results of a Food and Drug Administration study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2013 38:203–209. PMID:
23080427.
67. Cho HJ, Shin MH, Huh JW, Ryu KS, Park CK. Heterotopic ossification following cervical total disc replacement: iatrogenic or constitutional? Korean J Spine 2012 9:209–214. PMID:
25983817.
68. Kim KS, Heo DH. Do Postoperative biomechanical changes induce heterotopic ossification after cervical arthroplasty?: a 5-year follow-up study. Clin Spine Surg 2016 29:E309–E313. PMID:
24270577.
69. Tian W, Han X, Liu B, He D, Lv Y, Yue J. Generation and development of paravertebral ossification in cervical artificial disk replacement: a detailed analytic report using coronal reconstruction CT. Clin Spine Surg 2017 30:E179–E188. PMID:
28323697.
70. Jin YJ, Park SB, Kim MJ, Kim KJ, Kim HJ. An analysis of heterotopic ossification in cervical disc arthroplasty: a novel morphologic classification of an ossified mass. Spine J 2013 13:408–420. PMID:
23332520.
71. Yeung M, Jamshidi S, Horner N, Simunovic N, Karlsson J, Ayeni OR. Efficacy of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug prophylaxis for heterotrophic ossification in hip arthroscopy: a systematic review. Arthroscopy 2016 32:519–525. PMID:
26432432.
72. Tu TH, Wu JC, Huang WC, et al. Postoperative nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs and the prevention of heterotopic ossification after cervical arthroplasty: analysis using CT and a minimum 2-year follow-up. J Neurosurg Spine 2015 22:447–453. PMID:
25723121.
73. Miller GK. Editorial commentary: the efficacy of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for prophylaxis of heterotopic ossification in hip arthroscopy: do we treat patients or X-rays? Arthroscopy 2016 32:526–527. PMID:
26945959.
74. Sundseth J, Jacobsen EA, Kolstad F, et al. Heterotopic ossification and clinical outcome in nonconstrained cervical arthroplasty 2 years after surgery: the Norwegian Cervical Arthroplasty Trial (NORCAT). Eur Spine J 2016 25:2271–2278. PMID:
27061727.
75. Zhou HH, Qu Y, Dong RP, Kang MY, Zhao JW. Does heterotopic ossification affect the outcomes of cervical total disc replacement?: a meta-analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2015 40:E332–E340. PMID:
25584944.
76. Van Der Straeten C, Grammatopoulos G, Gill HS, Calistri A, Campbell P, De Smet KA. The 2012 Otto Aufranc Award: the interpretation of metal ion levels in unilateral and bilateral hip resurfacing. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2013 471:377–385. PMID:
22930211.
77. Gornet MF, Burkus JK, Harper ML, Chan FW, Skipor AK, Jacobs JJ. Prospective study on serum metal levels in patients with metal-on-metal lumbar disc arthroplasty. Eur Spine J 2013 22:741–746. PMID:
23179981.
78. Agarwal S. Osteolysis: basic science, incidence and diagnosis. Curr Orthop 2004 18:220–231.
79. Zeh A, Planert M, Siegert G, Lattke P, Held A, Hein W. Release of cobalt and chromium ions into the serum following implantation of the metal-on-metal Maverick-type artificial lumbar disc (Medtronic Sofamor Danek). Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2007 32:348–352. PMID:
17268267.
80. Punt IM, Cleutjens JP, de Bruin T, et al. Periprosthetic tissue reactions observed at revision of total intervertebral disc arthroplasty. Biomaterials 2009 30:2079–2084. PMID:
19155064.
81. Kurtz SM, van Ooij A, Ross R, et al. Polyethylene wear and rim fracture in total disc arthroplasty. Spine J 2007 7:12–21. PMID:
17197327.
82. Jacobs JJ, An HS. Commentary: total disc arthroplasty and the bearing surface debate. Spine J 2012 12:702–704. PMID:
23021032.
83. Harris WH. Wear and periprosthetic osteolysis: the problem. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2001 (393): 66–70.
84. Hedman TP, Kostuik JP, Fernie GR, Hellier WG. Design of an intervertebral disc prosthesis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1991 16(6 Suppl): S256–S260. PMID:
1862421.
85. Jacobs WC, Anderson PG, Limbeek J, Willems PC, Pavlov P. Single or double-level anterior interbody fusion techniques for cervical degenerative disc disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004 (4): CD004958PMID:
15495130.
86. Park DH, Ramakrishnan P, Cho TH, et al. Effect of lower two-level anterior cervical fusion on the superior adjacent level. J Neurosurg Spine 2007 7:336–340. PMID:
17877270.
87. Phillips FM, Tzermiadianos MN, Voronov LI, et al. Effect of two-level total disc replacement on cervical spine kinematics. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2009 34:E794–E799. PMID:
19829242.
88. Bae HW, Kim KD, Nunley PD, et al. Comparison of clinical outcomes of 1- and 2-level total disc replacement: four-year results from a prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter IDE clinical trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2015 40:759–766. PMID:
25785955.
89. Davis RJ, Kim KD, Hisey MS, et al. Cervical total disc replacement with the Mobi-C cervical artificial disc compared with anterior discectomy and fusion for treatment of 2-level symptomatic degenerative disc disease: a prospective, randomized, controlled multicenter clinical trial: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 2013 19:532–545. PMID:
24010901.
90. Joaquim AF, Riew KD. Multilevel cervical arthroplasty: current evidence: a systematic review. Neurosurg Focus 2017 42:E4.
91. Hey HW, Hong CC, Long AS, Hee HT. Is hybrid surgery of the cervical spine a good balance between fusion and arthroplasty?: pilot results from a single surgeon series. Eur Spine J 2013 22:116–122. PMID:
22922801.
92. Alvin MD, Mroz TE. The Mobi-C cervical disc for one-level and two-level cervical disc replacement: a review of the literature. Med Devices (Auckl) 2014 7:397–403. PMID:
25473319.
93. Lee SB, Cho KS, Kim JY, Yoo DS, Lee TG, Huh PW. Hybrid surgery of multilevel cervical degenerative disc disease: review of literature and clinical results. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 2012 52:452–458. PMID:
23323165.