{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,8,19]],"date-time":"2026-08-19T20:00:08Z","timestamp":1787169608058,"version":"build-2736575974"},"reference-count":37,"publisher":"Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)","issue":"1","content-domain":{"domain":["lww.com","ovid.com"],"crossmark-restriction":true},"short-container-title":[],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2022,1]]},"abstract":"<jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Introduction:<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>Cervical total disc replacement (CTDR) is an alternative to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for select patients that may preserve range of motion and reduce adjacent segment disease. Various CTDR prostheses are available; however, comparative data are limited. This study aimed to compare the short-term kinematic and radiological parameters of the M6-C, Mobi-C, and the CP-ESP prostheses.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Methods:<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>This retrospective cohort study included patients treated with CTDR between March 2005 and October 2020 at a single institution. Patients were included if their follow-up assessment included lateral erect and flexion\/extension radiographs. The primary outcome assessed at 3-months postoperatively was range of motion, measured by the difference in functional spinal unit angle between flexion and extension.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Results:<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>\n                      A total of 131 CTDR levels (120 patients, 46.2 \u00b1 10.1 years, 57% male) were included. Prostheses implanted included the M6-C (\n                      <jats:italic toggle=\"yes\">n<\/jats:italic>\n                      = 52), Mobi-C (\n                      <jats:italic toggle=\"yes\">n<\/jats:italic>\n                      = 54), and CP-ESP (\n                      <jats:italic toggle=\"yes\">n<\/jats:italic>\n                      = 25). Range of motion varied significantly (8.2\u00b0 \u00b1 4.4\u00b0 vs. 10.9\u00b0 \u00b1 4.7\u00b0 vs. 6.1\u00b0 \u00b1 2.7\u00b0,\n                      <jats:italic toggle=\"yes\">P<\/jats:italic>\n                      &lt; 0.001). On post hoc analysis, the Mobi-C prosthesis demonstrated a significantly greater range of motion than either the M6-C prosthesis (\n                      <jats:italic toggle=\"yes\">P<\/jats:italic>\n                      = 0.003) or CP-ESP (\n                      <jats:italic toggle=\"yes\">P<\/jats:italic>\n                      &lt; 0.001).\n                    <\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Conclusion:<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>Although the optimal range of motion for CTDR has not been established, short-term differences in the range of motion may guide the selection of CTDR prosthesis. Further studies with longer follow-up and consideration of clinical outcome measures are necessary.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>","DOI":"10.4103\/jcvjs.jcvjs_92_21","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2022,3,9]],"date-time":"2022-03-09T09:27:19Z","timestamp":1646818039000},"page":"55-61","update-policy":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1097\/lww.0000000000001000","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":6,"title":["Comparison of in vivo kinematic and radiological parameters of three cervical disc prostheses"],"prefix":"10.4103","volume":"13","author":[{"given":"Nicholas","family":"Chang","sequence":"first","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Ralph","family":"Mobbs","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Nicholas","family":"Hui","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Henry","family":"Lin","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"276","reference":[{"key":"R1-9-20240904","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1087","DOI":"10.1093\/neuros\/nyx579","article-title":"Cervical disc arthroplasty: Current evidence and real-world application","volume":"83","author":"Nunley","year":"2018","journal-title":"Neurosurgery"},{"key":"R2-9-20240904","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"79","DOI":"10.1097\/00024720-200404000-00001","article-title":"Long-term follow-up after interbody fusion of the cervical spine","volume":"17","author":"Goffin","year":"2004","journal-title":"J Spinal Disord Tech"},{"key":"R3-9-20240904","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"2167","DOI":"10.1097\/00007632-199311000-00004","article-title":"Late radiographic findings after anterior cervical fusion for spondylotic myeloradiculopathy","volume":"18","author":"Baba","year":"1993","journal-title":"Spine (Phila Pa 1976"},{"key":"R4-9-20240904","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"721","DOI":"10.1097\/BRS.0b013e3181df10fc","article-title":"Index and adjacent level kinematics after cervical disc replacement and anterior fusion: In vivo quantitative radiographic analysis","volume":"36","author":"Park","year":"2011","journal-title":"Spine (Phila Pa 1976"},{"key":"R5-9-20240904","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","journal-title":"J Neurosurg"},{"key":"R6-9-20240904","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"33","DOI":"10.3171\/SPI-07\/07\/033","article-title":"Changes in adjacent-level disc pressure and facet joint force after cervical arthroplasty compared with cervical discectomy and fusion","volume":"7","author":"Chang","year":"2007","journal-title":"J Neurosurg Spine"},{"key":"R7-9-20240904","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","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","journal-title":"Spine (Phila Pa 1976"},{"key":"R8-9-20240904","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"2431","DOI":"10.1097\/00007632-200211150-00003","article-title":"Biomechanical study on the effect of cervical spine fusion on adjacent-level intradiscal pressure and segmental motion","volume":"27","author":"Eck","year":"2002","journal-title":"Spine (Phila Pa 1976"},{"key":"R9-9-20240904","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"715","DOI":"10.3171\/2010.5.SPINE09852","article-title":"Prospective study of cervical arthroplasty in 98 patients involved in 1 of 3 separate investigational device exemption studies from a single investigational site with a minimum 2-year follow-up. Clinical article","volume":"13","author":"Coric","year":"2010","journal-title":"J Neurosurg Spine"},{"key":"R10-9-20240904","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"5","DOI":"10.1016\/j.spinee.2012.11.032","article-title":"Symptomatic adjacent segment disease after cervical total disc replacement: Re-examining the clinical and radiological evidence with established criteria","volume":"13","author":"Nunley","year":"2013","journal-title":"Spine J"},{"key":"R11-9-20240904","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"213","DOI":"10.3171\/2015.12.SPINE15824","article-title":"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","volume":"25","author":"Radcliff","year":"2016","journal-title":"J Neurosurg Spine"},{"key":"R12-9-20240904","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"734","DOI":"10.3171\/2015.8.SPINE15219","article-title":"Subsequent surgery rates after cervical total disc replacement using a Mobi-C cervical disc prosthesis versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: A prospective randomized clinical trial with 5-year follow-up","volume":"24","author":"Jackson","year":"2016","journal-title":"J Neurosurg Spine"},{"key":"R13-9-20240904","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"10","DOI":"10.14444\/3010","article-title":"Prospective, randomized comparison of one-level Mobi-c cervical total disc replacement vs.anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: Results at 5-year follow-up","volume":"10","author":"Hisey","year":"2016","journal-title":"Int J Spine Surg"},{"key":"R14-9-20240904","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"71","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ijsp.2012.02.001","article-title":"Cervical total disc replacement using a novel compressible prosthesis: Results from a prospective food and drug administration-regulated feasibility study with 24-month follow-up","volume":"6","author":"Lauryssen","year":"2012","journal-title":"Int J Spine Surg"},{"key":"R15-9-20240904","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"9","DOI":"10.1007\/s00590-015-1695-1","article-title":"The innovative viscoelastic CP ESP cervical disk prosthesis with six degrees of freedom: Biomechanical concepts, development program and preliminary clinical experience","volume":"26","author":"Lazennec","year":"2016","journal-title":"Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol"},{"key":"R16-9-20240904","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"E182","DOI":"10.1097\/BSD.0000000000000025","article-title":"The M6-C cervical disk prosthesis: First clinical experience in 33 patients","volume":"29","author":"Thomas","year":"2016","journal-title":"Clin Spine Surg"},{"key":"R17-9-20240904","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"393","DOI":"10.21037\/jss.2019.09.27","article-title":"Comparison of M6-C and Mobi-C cervical total disc replacement for cervical degenerative disc disease in adults","volume":"5","author":"Hui","year":"2019","journal-title":"J Spine Surg"},{"key":"R18-9-20240904","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"991","DOI":"10.1302\/0301-620X.100B8.BJJ-2018-0120.R1","article-title":"Total disc replacement versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: A systematic review with meta-analysis of data from a total of 3160 patients across 14 randomized controlled trials with both short- and medium- to long-term outcomes","volume":"100-b","author":"Findlay","year":"2018","journal-title":"Bone Joint J"},{"key":"R19-9-20240904","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"84","DOI":"10.1111\/os.12376","article-title":"Comparative study between M6-C and Mobi-C cervical artificial disc replacement: Biomechanical outcomes and comparison with normative data","volume":"10","author":"Pham","year":"2018","journal-title":"Orthop Surg"},{"key":"R20-9-20240904","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"2713","DOI":"10.1007\/s00586-019-06064-4","article-title":"Prosthesis design influences segmental contribution to total cervical motion after cervical disc arthroplasty","volume":"29","author":"Patwardhan","year":"2020","journal-title":"Eur Spine J"},{"key":"R21-9-20240904","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"497","DOI":"10.2106\/JBJS.K.01733","article-title":"Six-degrees-of-freedom cervical spine range of motion during dynamic flexion-extension after single-level anterior arthrodesis: Comparison with asymptomatic control subjects","volume":"95","author":"Anderst","year":"2013","journal-title":"J Bone Joint Surg Am"},{"key":"R22-9-20240904","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1286","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jbiomech.2015.02.049","article-title":"Three-dimensional intervertebral kinematics in the healthy young adult cervical spine during dynamic functional loading","volume":"48","author":"Anderst","year":"2015","journal-title":"J Biomech"},{"key":"R23-9-20240904","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"109418","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jbiomech.2019.109418","article-title":"Intervertebral range of motion characteristics of normal cervical spinal segments (C0-T1) during in vivo neck motions","volume":"98","author":"Zhou","year":"2020","journal-title":"J Biomech"},{"key":"R24-9-20240904","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"362","DOI":"10.1097\/BRS.0000000000000158","article-title":"Normal values for cervical range of motion","volume":"39","author":"Swinkels","year":"2014","journal-title":"spine (Phila Pa 1976"},{"key":"R25-9-20240904","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"201","DOI":"10.1016\/0268-0033(95)00072-0","article-title":"Three-dimensional analysis of active cervical motion: The effect of age and gender","volume":"11","author":"Trott","year":"1996","journal-title":"Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon"},{"key":"R26-9-20240904","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"476","DOI":"10.1097\/BRS.0000000000001237","article-title":"Age-related and degenerative changes in the osseous anatomy, alignment, and range of motion of the cervical spine: A comparative study of radiographic data from 1016 patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy and 1230 asymptomatic subjects","volume":"41","author":"Machino","year":"2016","journal-title":"Spine (Phila Pa 1976"},{"key":"R27-9-20240904","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"390","DOI":"10.1097\/00002517-199212000-00002","article-title":"The stabilizing system of the spine. Part II. Neutral zone and instability hypothesis","volume":"5","author":"Panjabi","year":"1992","journal-title":"J Spinal Disord"},{"key":"R28-9-20240904","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1911","DOI":"10.1016\/j.spinee.2020.08.007","article-title":"Viscoelastic cervical total disc replacement devices: Design concepts","volume":"20","author":"Jacobs","year":"2020","journal-title":"Spine J"},{"key":"R29-9-20240904","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"9","DOI":"10.1016\/j.esas.2010.01.002","article-title":"Initial clinical experience with a next-generation artificial disc for the treatment of symptomatic degenerative cervical radiculopathy","volume":"4","author":"Reyes-Sanchez","year":"2010","journal-title":"Sas J"},{"key":"R30-9-20240904","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"457","DOI":"10.3349\/ymj.2007.48.3.457","article-title":"Early clinical experience with the Mobi-C disc prosthesis","volume":"48","author":"Kim","year":"2007","journal-title":"Yonsei Med J"},{"key":"R31-9-20240904","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"399","DOI":"10.1007\/s10143-016-0765-0","article-title":"Does design matter. Cervical disc replacements under review?","volume":"41","author":"Staudt","year":"2018","journal-title":"Neurosurg Rev"},{"key":"R32-9-20240904","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"253","DOI":"10.3390\/ma12020253","article-title":"Materials for the spine: Anatomy, problems, and solutions","volume":"12","author":"Frost","year":"2019","journal-title":"Materials (Basel"},{"key":"R33-9-20240904","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1104","DOI":"10.1007\/s00586-010-1326-9","article-title":"Comparative anatomical dimensions of the complete human and porcine spine","volume":"19","author":"Busscher","year":"2010","journal-title":"Eur Spine J"},{"key":"R34-9-20240904","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"2371","DOI":"10.1007\/s00586-019-06069-z","article-title":"Clinical and radiological evaluation of cervical disc arthroplasty with 5-year follow-up: A prospective study of 384 patients","volume":"28","author":"Dufour","year":"2019","journal-title":"Eur Spine J"},{"key":"R36-9-20240904","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"7","DOI":"10.14444\/1007","article-title":"Multi-center, prospective, randomized, controlled investigational device exemption clinical trial comparing Mobi-C cervical artificial disc to anterior discectomy and fusion in the treatment of symptomatic degenerative disc disease in the cervical spine","volume":"8","author":"Hisey","year":"2014","journal-title":"Int J Spine Surg"},{"key":"R37-9-20240904","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"15","DOI":"10.3171\/2014.7.SPINE13953","article-title":"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","volume":"22","author":"Davis","year":"2015","journal-title":"J Neurosurg Spine"},{"key":"R38-9-20240904","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1417","DOI":"10.1007\/s00586-011-1722-9","article-title":"Comparison between single- and multi-level patients: Clinical and radiological outcomes 2 years after cervical disc replacement","volume":"20","author":"Huppert","year":"2011","journal-title":"Eur Spine J"}],"container-title":["Journal of Craniovertebral Junction and Spine"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/www.ovid.com\/10.4103\/jcvjs.jcvjs_92_21","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2026,8,19]],"date-time":"2026-08-19T19:08:18Z","timestamp":1787166498000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/www.ovid.com\/10.4103\/jcvjs.jcvjs_92_21"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2022,1]]},"references-count":37,"journal-issue":{"issue":"1","published-print":{"date-parts":[[2022]]}},"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.4103\/jcvjs.jcvjs_92_21","relation":{},"ISSN":["0974-8237"],"issn-type":[{"value":"0974-8237","type":"print"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2022,1]]}}}