Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Update on cervical artificial disk replacement.

Paul A Anderson1, Rick C Sasso, K Daniel Riew

  • 1Department of Orthopedics and Rehabilitation, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.

Instructional Course Lectures
|May 3, 2007
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Clinically Significant Changes in Global Cervical Range of Motion Following Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Systematic Review.

JBJS reviews·2026
Same author

Response to the Letter to the Editor on "Perioperative GLP-1 Receptor Agonist Use is Associated with Reduced Revisions and Complications Following ACDF: A Propensity-Matched Analysis".

Global spine journal·2026
Same author

A 7-year minimum follow-up of the M6-L total disk replacement for low back pain with radiculopathy in young railway employees: a retrospective single-center study.

European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society·2026
Same author

Perioperative GLP-1 Receptor Agonist Use is Associated With Reduced Revisions and Complications Following ACDF: A Propensity-Matched Analysis.

Global spine journal·2026
Same author

Prognostic model for outcome after L4-5 minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion based on a comprehensive clinical and radiological analysis.

Journal of neurosurgery. Spine·2026
Same author

Motion Preservation Cervical Spine Surgery to Treat Cervical Radiculopathy in a Mixed Martial Arts World Champion: A Case Report.

JBJS case connector·2026
Same journal

Metastatic Bone Disease With Pathologic or Impending Pathologic Fractures: Resolve, Refer, or Collaborate.

Instructional course lectures·2025
Same journal

Evolving Concepts in Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery.

Instructional course lectures·2025
Same journal

Cervical Myelopathy: Where Are We Now? Classification, Surgical Approaches, and Tips and Tricks to Stay Out of Trouble.

Instructional course lectures·2025
Same journal

Factors Affecting Return to Play in Athletes With Foot and Ankle Injuries.

Instructional course lectures·2025
Same journal

Distal Tibia Salter-Harris Fractures: To Fix or Not to Fix.

Instructional course lectures·2025
Same journal

Pediatric and Adolescent Tibial Shaft Fractures: Flexible Nail, Rigid Nail, Plate, or External Fixation.

Instructional course lectures·2025
See all related articles

Cervical disk arthroplasty offers motion-sparing benefits for cervical radiculopathy and myelopathy, unlike fusion which enhances decompression via osteophyte resorption. Careful surgical technique and understanding tribology are crucial for successful arthroplasty.

Area of Science:

  • Orthopedics
  • Neurosurgery
  • Biomedical Engineering

Background:

  • Cervical disk arthroplasty is an emerging motion-sparing technology evaluated as an alternative to arthrodesis for cervical radiculopathy and myelopathy.
  • Both procedures aim for thorough decompression of neurocompressive pathology through osteophyte/disk removal and distraction.
  • A key difference is that solid fusion allows osteophyte resorption (Wolff's law), enhancing decompression, while arthroplasty does not.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To evaluate cervical disk arthroplasty as a motion-sparing alternative to arthrodesis.
  • To highlight the differences in decompression mechanisms between arthroplasty and arthrodesis.
  • To discuss the challenges and considerations for cervical disk arthroplasty.

Main Methods:

Related Experiment Videos

  • Evaluation of emerging motion-sparing technologies.
  • Comparison of surgical goals and outcomes between arthrodesis and arthroplasty.
  • Review of prosthetic performance demands, including implantation techniques and surgical skills.
  • Exploration of tribology, kinematics, basic science, testing, and early clinical results of disk arthroplasty.

    • Main Results:

    • Arthroplasty does not facilitate osteophyte resorption, unlike fusion which benefits from Wolff's law.
    • Successful prosthetic performance requires exacting implantation techniques, specialized instrumentation, and advanced surgical skills.
    • Understanding the tribology of disk arthroplasty is essential for evaluating its performance.

    Conclusions:

    • Cervical disk arthroplasty presents unique challenges compared to arthrodesis, particularly regarding osteophyte resorption and the need for precise surgical execution.
    • Further understanding of tribology, kinematics, and clinical outcomes is necessary for the successful implementation of cervical disk arthroplasty.
    • The decision between arthrodesis and arthroplasty requires careful consideration of surgical goals, technical demands, and prosthetic characteristics.