Comparison of Mid-Long Term Results of Cervical Cage and Cervical Disc Prosthesis in Patients with Single Level Cervical Disc Herniation

Year 2025, Volume: 7 Issue: 1, 38 - 42

Hakan Kına , Bülent Bozyiğit

https://doi.org/10.37990/medr.1545650

Abstract

Aim: Continuous advancements in technology have facilitated the maintenance of spinal biomechanical properties, emphasizing the preservation of functional spinal segments. Therefore, this study focuses on comparing the mid- to long-term outcomes of cervical cage and cervical disc prosthesis (CDP) in patients with single-level cervical disc herniation.
Material and Method: This study included 51 patients diagnosed with cervical disc herniation. Among these, 25 underwent CDP, while 26 received a cervical cage. The mean follow-up period was 7.3 years. All surgeries were performed between 2021 and 2022 at a hospital in Türkiye. It was ensured that none of the patients had a prior history of spinal surgery. The demographics of the two groups were comparable. Radiographic evaluations and clinical outcomes were assessed, focusing on degenerative changes, cervical spine motion, and radicular pain in both groups.
Results: The mean age in the CDP group was 46 years, compared to 43 years in the cervical cage group. Recurrent cervical pain was observed in only one patient in the CDP group, whereas it was reported in eight patients in the cervical cage group over the 7.3-year follow-up period.
Conclusion: In conclusion, CDP was found to be a more effective treatment compared to cervical cage in patients with cervical disc herniation.

Keywords

Cervical cage, cervical disc prosthesis, cervical disc herniation, cervical pain

References

• Mazas S, Benzakour A, Castelain JE, et al. Cervical disc herniation: which surgery?. Int Orthop. 2019;43:761-6.
• Guan Q, Xing F, Long Y, Xiang Z. Cervical intradural disc herniation: A systematic review. J Clin Neurosci. 2018;48:1-6.
• Apaydın AS, Güneş M, Yana M. Investigation of functional disability, pain, and quality of life in patients with cervical radiculopathy by gender. Med Records. 2024;6:14-9.
• Gunasekaran A, de Los Reyes NKM, Walters J, Kazemi N. Clinical presentation, diagnosis, and surgical treatment of spontaneous cervical intradural disc herniations: a review of the literature. World Neurosurg. 2018;109:275-84.
• Kose SG, Kose HC, Celikel F, et al. Chronic pain: an update of clinical practices and advances in chronic pain management. Eurasian J Med. 2022;54:57-61.
• Peng Z, Hong Y, Meng Y, Liu H. A meta-analysis comparing the short-and mid-to long-term outcomes of artificial cervical disc replacement (ACDR) with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for the treatment of cervical degenerative disc disease. Int Orthop. 2022;46:1609-25.
• Emami A, Coban D, Changoor S, et al. Comparing mid-term outcomes between ACDF and minimally invasive posterior cervical foraminotomy in the treatment of cervical radiculopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2022;47:324-30.
• Health Quality Ontario. Cervical artificial disc replacement versus fusion for cervical degenerative disc disease: a health technology assessment. Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2019;19:1-223.
• He A, Xie D, Qu B, et al. Comparison between cervical disc arthroplasty and conservative treatment for patients with single level cervical radiculopathy at C5/6. Int J Surg. 2018;54:124-8.
• Irmak A, Söylemez B. One-year outcome comparison of polyetheretherketone cage and disc prosthesis in cervical disc replacement surgery. Erciyes Med J. 2022;44:44-50.
• Cui Y, Liu B, Zhou J, et al. Quantitative analysis of balance function characteristics in older patients with mild to moderate cognitive impairment. Exp Gerontol. 2023;182:112302.
• Mu G, Chen H, Fu H, et al. Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with zero-profile versus stand-alone cages for two-level cervical spondylosis: a retrospective cohort study. Front Surg. 2022;9:1002744.
• Yilmaz M, Yucesoy K, Erbayraktar RS, Altinag RS. Anterior hybrid construction of multilevel cervical disc disease and spondylotic spinal stenosis: surgical results and factors affecting adjacent segment problems. J Orthop Surg Res. 2021;16:298.