{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,8,24]],"date-time":"2026-08-24T22:31:57Z","timestamp":1787610717105,"version":"build-2736575974"},"reference-count":33,"publisher":"Wiley","issue":"2","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2018,5,27]],"date-time":"2018-05-27T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1527379200000},"content-version":"vor","delay-in-days":26,"URL":"http:\/\/onlinelibrary.wiley.com\/termsAndConditions#vor"}],"content-domain":{"domain":["onlinelibrary.wiley.com"],"crossmark-restriction":true},"short-container-title":["Orthopaedic Surgery"],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2018,5]]},"abstract":"<jats:sec><jats:title>Objective<\/jats:title><jats:p>Cervical spondylosis affects a huge proportion of the middle\u2010aged population. Degenerative changes can occur in multiple regions of the cervical spine typically affecting the joints, intervertebral discs and endplates. These changes lead to compression of adjacent nervous structures, which results in radiculopathic and myelopathic pain. Various treatment modalities are currently available with non\u2010surgical approaches the initial go to if there is no symptomatic cord compression. Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, or arthroplasty are the two common surgical approaches if non\u2010surgical treatments fail to relieve symptoms of the patients or there are signs of central cord compression. However, studies have shown that there is an increased risk of adjacent segment disease related to fusion. Cervical disc arthroplasty aims to restore normal range of motion (ROM) in patients with pain and disability due to degenerative disc disease resistant to conservative care. Two common disc prostheses used include M6\u2010C and Mobi\u2010C. Both prostheses comprise a mobile polymer segment sandwiched between two metal endplates with mechanisms resembling an actual intervertebral disc. This study aims to compare the kinematics associated with these prostheses, against the normal range of motion in the non\u2010degenerative population.<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Method<\/jats:title><jats:p>Patients who underwent M6\u2010C or Mobi\u2010C disc replacements by the senior author from 2012 to 2015 were identified at a single tertiary institution. Routine 3\u2010month postoperative lateral radiographs were analyzed for flexion and extension ROM angles at the involved vertebral level by two independent authors. Data was compared to previous published studies investigating cervical spine ROM of asymptomatic patients.<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Results<\/jats:title><jats:p>There was no statistical significance in the difference of overall flexion range between M6\u2010C and Mobi\u2010C prostheses. However, overall range of extension of Mobi\u2010C was greater compared to M6\u2010C (<jats:italic>P<\/jats:italic> = 0.028). At C<jats:sub>5\u20136<\/jats:sub>, the range of flexion for both implants were similar but lesser compared to asymptomatic patients (<jats:italic>P<\/jats:italic> &lt; 0.001). Range of extension was greater in the Mobi\u2010C group (14.2\u00b0 \u00b1 5.1\u00b0) compared to the M6\u2010C (7.3\u00b0 \u00b1 4.6\u00b0) (<jats:italic>P<\/jats:italic> = 0.0009). At C<jats:sub>6\u20137<\/jats:sub>, there were no statistical differences in both range of flexion and extension between the two prostheses and asymptomatic patients (<jats:italic>P<\/jats:italic> &gt; 0.05).<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Conclusion<\/jats:title><jats:p>The early results regarding restoration of ROM following cervical arthroplasty using either M6\u2010C or Mobi\u2010C prosthesis are encouraging. Long\u2010term follow\u2010up studies are necessary to observe the change in ROM over time with physiological loading and wear patterns.<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec>","DOI":"10.1111\/os.12376","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2018,6,1]],"date-time":"2018-06-01T00:16:42Z","timestamp":1527812202000},"page":"84-88","update-policy":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1002\/crossmark_policy","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":15,"title":["Comparative Study Between M6\u2010C and Mobi\u2010C Cervical Artificial Disc Replacement: Biomechanical Outcomes and Comparison with Normative Data"],"prefix":"10.1111","volume":"10","author":[{"given":"My","family":"Pham","sequence":"first","affiliation":[{"name":"NeuroSpine Surgery Research Group (NSURG), Prince of Wales Private Hospital  Sydney New South Wales Australia"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Kevin","family":"Phan","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"NeuroSpine Surgery Research Group (NSURG), Prince of Wales Private Hospital  Sydney New South Wales Australia"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Ian","family":"Teng","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"NeuroSpine Surgery Research Group (NSURG), Prince of Wales Private Hospital  Sydney New South Wales Australia"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Ralph J","family":"Mobbs","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"NeuroSpine Surgery Research Group (NSURG), Prince of Wales Private Hospital  Sydney New South Wales Australia"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"311","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2018,5,27]]},"reference":[{"key":"e_1_2_5_2_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1093\/brain\/117.2.325"},{"key":"e_1_2_5_3_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/S0140-6736(65)92674-7"},{"key":"e_1_2_5_4_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1007\/BF01631392"},{"key":"e_1_2_5_5_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1093\/brain\/83.4.589"},{"key":"e_1_2_5_6_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1007\/s00586-012-2176-4"},{"key":"e_1_2_5_7_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1007\/s00586-012-2167-5"},{"key":"e_1_2_5_8_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.3171\/jns.1966.25.1.0057"},{"key":"e_1_2_5_9_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1056\/NEJMcp043887"},{"key":"e_1_2_5_10_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1136\/bmj.k186"},{"key":"e_1_2_5_11_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/S0003-9993(00)90104-7"},{"key":"e_1_2_5_12_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1177\/2192568217701914"},{"key":"e_1_2_5_13_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1186\/s12891-015-0546-x"},{"key":"e_1_2_5_14_1","first-page":"72","article-title":"Anterior cervical disc arthroplasty (ACDA) versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF): a systematic review and meta\u2010analysis","volume":"1","author":"Maharaj MM","year":"2015","journal-title":"J Spine Surg"},{"key":"e_1_2_5_15_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1097\/BRS.0000000000001829"},{"key":"e_1_2_5_16_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1097\/BRS.0000000000001680"},{"key":"e_1_2_5_17_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1097\/BRS.0000000000001755"},{"key":"e_1_2_5_18_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.3171\/jns.1996.85.2.0206"},{"key":"e_1_2_5_19_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1007\/s00586-008-0878-4"},{"key":"e_1_2_5_20_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jocn.2008.04.018"},{"key":"e_1_2_5_21_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1007\/s00586-016-4791-y"},{"key":"e_1_2_5_22_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.spinee.2004.04.011"},{"key":"e_1_2_5_23_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.3171\/spi.2005.3.6.0417"},{"key":"e_1_2_5_24_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.esas.2011.03.003"},{"key":"e_1_2_5_25_1","first-page":"397","article-title":"The Mobi\u2010C cervical disc for one\u2010level and two\u2010level cervical disc replacement: a review of the literature","volume":"7","author":"Alvin MD","year":"2014","journal-title":"Med Devices (Auckl)"},{"key":"e_1_2_5_26_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.3349\/ymj.2007.48.3.457"},{"key":"e_1_2_5_27_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1097\/BSD.0b013e31820f916c"},{"key":"e_1_2_5_28_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1007\/s00586-009-1017-6"},{"key":"e_1_2_5_29_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ijsp.2012.02.001"},{"key":"e_1_2_5_30_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.2106\/JBJS.K.01733"},{"key":"e_1_2_5_31_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1097\/00007632-199902010-00008"},{"key":"e_1_2_5_32_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1007\/s00586-014-3677-0"},{"key":"e_1_2_5_33_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1002\/jor.1100090608"},{"key":"e_1_2_5_34_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.spinee.2012.11.048"}],"container-title":["Orthopaedic Surgery"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/api.wiley.com\/onlinelibrary\/tdm\/v1\/articles\/10.1111%2Fos.12376","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/onlinelibrary.wiley.com\/doi\/pdf\/10.1111\/os.12376","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2023,9,10]],"date-time":"2023-09-10T17:15:14Z","timestamp":1694366114000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/onlinelibrary.wiley.com\/doi\/10.1111\/os.12376"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2018,5]]},"references-count":33,"journal-issue":{"issue":"2","published-print":{"date-parts":[[2018,5]]}},"alternative-id":["10.1111\/os.12376"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1111\/os.12376","archive":["Portico"],"relation":{},"ISSN":["1757-7853","1757-7861"],"issn-type":[{"value":"1757-7853","type":"print"},{"value":"1757-7861","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2018,5]]},"assertion":[{"value":"2017-01-01","order":0,"name":"received","label":"Received","group":{"name":"publication_history","label":"Publication History"}},{"value":"2017-02-16","order":1,"name":"accepted","label":"Accepted","group":{"name":"publication_history","label":"Publication History"}},{"value":"2018-05-27","order":2,"name":"published","label":"Published","group":{"name":"publication_history","label":"Publication History"}}]}}