{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,3,19]],"date-time":"2026-03-19T10:34:58Z","timestamp":1773916498932,"version":"3.50.1"},"reference-count":30,"publisher":"Journal of Neurosurgery Publishing Group (JNSPG)","issue":"3","content-domain":{"domain":[],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["SPI"],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2015,3]]},"abstract":"<jats:sec>\n<jats:title>OBJECT<\/jats:title>\n<jats:p>Although cervical total disc replacement (TDR) has shown equivalence or superiority to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), potential problems include nonphysiological motion (hypermobility), accelerated degeneration of the facet joints, particulate wear, and compromise of the mechanical integrity of the endplate during device fixation. Dynamic cervical stabilization is a novel motion-preserving concept that facilitates controlled, limited flexion and extension, but prevents axial rotation and lateral bending, thereby reducing motion across the facet joints. Shock absorption of the Dynamic Cervical Implant (DCI) device is intended to protect adjacent levels from accelerated degeneration.<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec>\n<jats:sec>\n<jats:title>METHODS<\/jats:title>\n<jats:p>The authors conducted a prospective evaluation of 53 consecutive patients who underwent DCI stabilization for the treatment of 1-level (n = 42), 2-level (n = 9), and 3-level (n = 2) cervical disc disease with radiculopathy or myelopathy. Forty-seven patients (89%) completed all clinical and radiographic outcomes at a minimum of 24 months. Clinical outcomes consisted of Neck Disability Index (NDI) and visual analog scale (VAS) scores, neurological function at baseline and at latest follow-up, as well as patient satisfaction. Flexion-extension radiography was evaluated for device motion, implant migration, subsidence, and heterotopic ossification. Cervical sagittal alignment (Cobb angle), functional spinal unit (FSU) angle, and range of motion (ROM) at index and adjacent levels were evaluated with WEB 1000 software.<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec>\n<jats:sec>\n<jats:title>RESULTS<\/jats:title>\n<jats:p>The NDI score, VAS neck and arm pain scores, and neurological deficits were significantly reduced at each postoperative time point compared with baseline (p &lt; 0.0001). At 24 months postoperatively, 91% of patients were very satisfied and 9% somewhat satisfied, while 89% would definitely and 11% would probably elect to have the same surgery again. In 47 patients with 58 operated levels, the radiographic assessment showed good motion (5\u00b0\u201312\u00b0) of the device in 57%, reduced motion (2\u00b0\u20135\u00b0) in 34.5%, and little motion (0\u20132\u00b0) in 8.5%. The Cobb and FSU angles improved, showing a clear tendency for lordosis with the DCI. Motion greater than 2\u00b0 of the treated segment could be preserved in 91.5%, while 8.5% had a near segmental fusion. Mean ROM at index levels demonstrated satisfying motion preservation with DCI. Mean ROM at upper and lower adjacent levels showed maintenance of adjacent-level kinematics. Heterotopic ossification, including 20% minor and 15% major, had no direct impact on clinical results. There were 2 endplate subsidences detected with an increased segmental lordosis. One asymptomatic anterior device migration required reoperation. Three patients underwent a secondary surgery in another segment during follow-up, twice for a new disc herniation and once for an adjacent degeneration. There was no posterior migration and no device breakage.<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec>\n<jats:sec>\n<jats:title>CONCLUSIONS<\/jats:title>\n<jats:p>Preliminary results indicate that the DCI implanted using a proper surgical technique is safe and facilitates excellent clinical outcomes, maintains index-and adjacent-level ROM in the majority of cases, improves sagittal alignment, and may be suitable for patients with facet arthrosis who would otherwise not be candidates for cervical TDR. Shock absorption together with maintained motion in the DCI may protect adjacent levels from early degeneration in longer follow-up.<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec>","DOI":"10.3171\/2014.10.spine131089","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2015,1,2]],"date-time":"2015-01-02T14:59:58Z","timestamp":1420210798000},"page":"237-245","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":24,"title":["Stabilization with the Dynamic Cervical Implant: a novel treatment approach following cervical discectomy and decompression"],"prefix":"10.3171","volume":"22","author":[{"given":"Guy","family":"Matg\u00e9","sequence":"first","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Christophe","family":"Berthold","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Vimal Raj Nitish","family":"Gunness","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Ardian","family":"Hana","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Frank","family":"Hertel","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]}],"member":"1754","reference":[{"key":"b1-spine131089","series-title":"Spine (Phila Pa 1976)","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"2001","DOI":"10.1097\/BRS.0b013e3181b03fe6","article-title":"Sagittal cervical alignment after cervical disc arthroplasty and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: results of a prospective, randomized, controlled trial","volume":"34","author":"Anakwenze","year":"2009"},{"key":"b2-spine131089","series-title":"Spine J","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"711","DOI":"10.1016\/j.spinee.2007.06.018","article-title":"The prevalence of indications and contraindications to cervical total disc replacement","volume":"8","author":"Auerbach","year":"2008"},{"key":"b3-spine131089","series-title":"J Neurosurg Spine","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"403","DOI":"10.3171\/spi.2005.2.4.0403","article-title":"Early results after ProDisc-C cervical disc replacement","volume":"2","author":"Bertagnoli","year":"2005"},{"key":"b4-spine131089","series-title":"J Bone Joint Surg Am 86-A","first-page":"411","article-title":"An AOA critical issue. Disc replacements: this time will we really cure low-back and neck pain?","author":"Boden","year":"2004"},{"key":"b5-spine131089","series-title":"J Neurosurg Spine","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"40","DOI":"10.3171\/SPI-07\/07\/040","article-title":"Range of motion change after cervical arthroplasty with ProDisc-C and prestige artificial discs compared with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion","volume":"7","author":"Chang","year":"2007"},{"key":"b6-spine131089","series-title":"J Neurosurg Spine","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"214","DOI":"10.3171\/2009.9.SPINE08952","article-title":"Comparative fixation methods of cervical disc arthroplasty versus conventional methods of anterior cervical arthrodesis: serration, teeth, keels, or screws? Laboratory investigation","volume":"12","author":"Cunningham","year":"2010"},{"key":"b7-spine131089","series-title":"J Spinal Disord Tech","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"314","DOI":"10.1097\/00024720-200308000-00002","article-title":"Biomechanical testing of an artificial cervical joint and an anterior cervical plate","volume":"16","author":"DiAngelo","year":"2003"},{"key":"b8-spine131089","series-title":"Spine (Phila Pa 1976)","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1165","DOI":"10.1097\/01.brs.0000162441.23824.95","article-title":"Adjacent level intradiscal pressure and segmental kinematics following a cervical total disc arthroplasty: an in vitro human cadaveric model","volume":"30","author":"Dmitriev","year":"2005"},{"key":"b9-spine131089","series-title":"Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"397","DOI":"10.1016\/j.clinbiomech.2010.01.010","article-title":"The influence of the axial, antero-posterior and lateral positions of the center of rotation of a ball-and-socket disc prosthesis on the cervical spine biomechanics","volume":"25","author":"Galbusera","year":"2010"},{"key":"b10-spine131089","series-title":"J Spinal Disord","first-page":"500","article-title":"Long-term results after anterior cervical fusion and osteosynthetic stabilization for fractures and\/or dislocations of the cervical spine","volume":"8","author":"Goffin","year":"1995"},{"key":"b11-spine131089","series-title":"J Spinal Disord Tech","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"10","DOI":"10.1097\/BSD.0b013e31820f916c","article-title":"Sagittal alignment after single cervical disc arthroplasty","volume":"25","author":"Gu\u00e9rin","year":"2012"},{"key":"b12-spine131089","series-title":"Spine (Phila Pa 1976)","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"101","DOI":"10.1097\/BRS.0b013e31818ee263","article-title":"Comparison of BRYAN cervical disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical decompression and fusion: clinical and radiographic results of a randomized, controlled, clinical trial","volume":"34","author":"Heller","year":"2009"},{"key":"b13-spine131089","series-title":"Paradigm Spine","article-title":"Does maintenance of physiologic kinematics in the adjacent segment prevent adjacent segment degeneration following cervical dynamic stabilization?","author":"Herdmann"},{"key":"b14-spine131089","series-title":"J Bone Joint Surg Am","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"519","DOI":"10.2106\/00004623-199904000-00009","article-title":"Radiculopathy and myelopathy at segments adjacent to the site of a previous anterior cervical arthrodesis","volume":"81","author":"Hilibrand","year":"1999"},{"key":"b15-spine131089","series-title":"Spine J","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"624","DOI":"10.1016\/j.spinee.2004.04.011","article-title":"Adjacent segment disease after anterior cervical interbody fusion","volume":"4","author":"Ishihara","year":"2004"},{"issue":"6","key":"b16-spine131089","series-title":"Neurosurg Focus","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"E9","DOI":"10.3171\/2010.3.FOCUS1046","article-title":"Analysis of load sharing on uncovertebral and facet joints at the C5-6 level with implantation of the Bryan, Prestige LP, or Pro-Disc-C cervical disc prosthesis: an in vivo image-based finite element study","volume":"28","author":"Kang","year":"2010"},{"key":"b17-spine131089","series-title":"Spine (Phila Pa 1976)","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1554","DOI":"10.1097\/BRS.0b013e3181aa643b","article-title":"Stress analysis of the interface between cervical vertebrae end plates and the Bryan, Prestige LP, and ProDisc-C cervical disc prostheses: an in vivo image-based finite element study","volume":"34","author":"Lin","year":"2009"},{"key":"b18-spine131089","series-title":"Practical Handbook of Neurosurgery From Leading Neurosurgeons","first-page":"1141","article-title":"Approaches to cervical spine","author":"Matg\u00e9","year":"2009"},{"key":"b19-spine131089","series-title":"Acta Neurochir (Wien)","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"539","DOI":"10.1007\/s00701-002-0939-0","article-title":"Cervical cage fusion with 5 different implants: 250 cases","volume":"144","author":"Matg\u00e9","year":"2002"},{"key":"b20-spine131089","series-title":"Spine (Phila Pa 1976)","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"943","DOI":"10.1097\/BRS.0b013e31823da169","article-title":"A meta-analysis of comparative outcomes following cervical arthroplasty or anterior cervical fusion: results from 4 prospective multicenter randomized clinical trials and up to 1226 patients","volume":"37","author":"McAfee","year":"2012"},{"key":"b21-spine131089","series-title":"J Neurosurg Spine","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"198","DOI":"10.3171\/spi.2007.6.3.198","article-title":"Clinical and radiographic analysis of cervical disc arthroplasty compared with allograft fusion: a randomized controlled clinical trial","volume":"6","author":"Mummaneni","year":"2007"},{"key":"b22-spine131089","series-title":"Spine J","first-page":"275","article-title":"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","volume":"9","author":"Murrey","year":"2009"},{"key":"b23-spine131089","series-title":"J Neurosurg Spine","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"417","DOI":"10.3171\/spi.2005.3.6.0417","article-title":"Assessment of adjacent-segment disease in patients treated with cervical fusion or arthroplasty: a prospective 2-year study","volume":"3","author":"Robertson","year":"2005"},{"key":"b24-spine131089","series-title":"Spine (Phila Pa 1976)","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"E6","DOI":"10.1097\/BRS.0b013e31815e5dce","article-title":"In vivo kinematics of two types of ball-and-socket cervical disc replacements in the sagittal plane: cranial versus caudal geometric center","volume":"33","author":"Rousseau","year":"2008"},{"key":"b25-spine131089","series-title":"Spine (Phila Pa 1976)","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"2510","DOI":"10.1097\/BRS.0b013e318186b258","article-title":"Total disc replacement positioning affects facet contact forces and vertebral body strains","volume":"33","author":"Rundell","year":"2008"},{"key":"b26-spine131089","series-title":"Spine (Phila Pa 1976)","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"2933","DOI":"10.1097\/BRS.0b013e31815d0034","article-title":"Artificial disc versus fusion: a prospective, randomized study with 2-year follow-up on 99 patients","volume":"32","author":"Sasso","year":"2007"},{"key":"b27-spine131089","series-title":"J Neurosurg Spine","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"601","DOI":"10.3171\/2012.3.SPINE11436","article-title":"The effects of carpentry on heterotopic ossification and mobility in cervical arthroplasty: determination by computed tomography with a minimum 2-year follow-up. Clinical article","volume":"16","author":"Tu","year":"2012"},{"key":"b28-spine131089","series-title":"Paradigm Spine","article-title":"Biomechanical comparison between fusion, TDR and dynamic stabilization","author":"Welke"},{"issue":"1 Suppl","key":"b29-spine131089","series-title":"J Neurosurg","first-page":"17","article-title":"Influence of an artificial cervical joint compared with fusion on adjacent-level motion in the treatment of degenerative cervical disc disease","volume":"96","author":"Wigfield","year":"2002"},{"key":"b30-spine131089","series-title":"Spine (Phila Pa 1976)","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"203","DOI":"10.1097\/BRS.0b013e318278eb38","article-title":"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","volume":"38","author":"Zigler","year":"2013"}],"container-title":["Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine"],"original-title":[],"link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/thejns.org\/view\/journals\/j-neurosurg-spine\/22\/3\/article-p237.xml","content-type":"text\/html","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/thejns.org\/downloadpdf\/journals\/j-neurosurg-spine\/22\/3\/article-p237.xml","content-type":"text\/html","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"syndication"},{"URL":"https:\/\/thejns.org\/downloadpdf\/journals\/j-neurosurg-spine\/22\/3\/article-p237.xml","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2023,4,15]],"date-time":"2023-04-15T21:28:37Z","timestamp":1681594117000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/thejns.org\/view\/journals\/j-neurosurg-spine\/22\/3\/article-p237.xml"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2015,3]]},"references-count":30,"journal-issue":{"issue":"3"},"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3171\/2014.10.spine131089","relation":{},"ISSN":["1547-5654"],"issn-type":[{"value":"1547-5654","type":"print"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2015,3]]}}}