Comparative Study Between M6‐C and Mobi‐C Cervical Artificial Disc Replacement: Biomechanical Outcomes and Comparison with Normative Data. Issue 2 (May 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Pham, My; Phan, Kevin; Teng, Ian; Mobbs, Ralph J
• Is Part Of: Orthopaedic surgery. Volume 10:Issue 2(2018)
• Page Start: 84
• Page End: 88
• Publication Date: 2018-05
• Subjects: Artificial disc prosthesis -- Biomechanics -- Cervical arthroplasty -- M6‐C -- Mobi‐C; Orthopedic surgery -- Periodicals; Orthopedics -- Periodicals; Musculoskeletal system -- Wounds and injuries -- Periodicals; 617.47005
• DOI: 10.1111/os.12376
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1757-7853

Abstract

Abstract : Objective: Cervical spondylosis affects a huge proportion of the middle‐aged 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‐surgical 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‐surgical 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‐C and Mobi‐C. 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‐degenerative population. Method: Patients who underwent M6‐C or Mobi‐C disc replacements by the senior author from 2012 to 2015 were identified at a single tertiary institution. Routine 3‐month 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. Results: There was no statistical significance in the difference of overall flexion range between M6‐C and Mobi‐C prostheses. However, overall range of extension of Mobi‐C was greater compared to M6‐C ( P = 0.028). At C5–6, the range of flexion for both implants were similar but lesser compared to asymptomatic patients ( P < 0.001). Range of extension was greater in the Mobi‐C group (14.2° ± 5.1°) compared to the M6‐C (7.3° ± 4.6°) ( P = 0.0009). At C6–7, there were no statistical differences in both range of flexion and extension between the two prostheses and asymptomatic patients ( P > 0.05). Conclusion: The early results regarding restoration of ROM following cervical arthroplasty using either M6‐C or Mobi‐C prosthesis are encouraging. Long‐term follow‐up studies are necessary to observe the change in ROM over time with physiological loading and wear patterns.