Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 1, 2026
Multilevel Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Degenerative Lumbar Disc Disease with Instability
Published on: July 25, 2025
Early clinical and radiographical results of keel-less and shallow keel cervical disc replacement
Ji Min Ling1, Rajendra Tiruchelvarayan2
1Department of Neurosurgery, National Neuroscience Institute, 11 Jalan Tan Tock Seng, 308433 Singapore.
Background:
Cervical disc replacements has been shown to be as effective as fusions in the treatment of radiculopathy or myelopathy due to disc prolapse. Newer implants were designed to reduce the difficulty of end-plate preparation. Since 2010, the authors have started using Discocerv (Alphatec Spine, Carlsbad, USA) a keel-less implant and Activ-C (B. Braun, Sheffield, UK), a shallow keel implant.
Aim:
The aim of this study was to compare the duration of surgery between cervical disc replacement and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, and also to evaluate the functional outcome, complications, and radiographic outcome of cervical disc replacement.
Results:
Fifty patients were included (20 disc replacement and 30 fusion). This was a single surgeon retrospective study, with all surgery performed by the senior author (RT). The mean operation duration for single-level disc replacement was 2.6 h, and for single-level fusion was 2.4 h (P = 0.4684). For 2-levels surgery, the result was 3.5 h for 2-level hybrid surgery (one level disc replacement and one level fusion) and 3.4 h for fusion (P = 0.4489). Disc replacement resulted in preservation of an average of 67% of the angle of motion at the sagittal plane (FFflexion-extension). The average range of motion after disc replacement was 6.1°. The median clinical follow-up duration was 2 years (average 1.8 years). There was no incidence of major complications or significant neurovascular injury in this series of patients. A significant improvement in short form-36 scores was seen as early as 3 months postoperative (from 58 preoperative to 92 at 3 months). The improvement was sustained up to the fourth year of follow-up.
Conclusion:
Cervical arthroplasty with keel-less and shallow keel implants are safe and relatively easy to perform. The surgical time for disc replacement is not significantly longer than standard fusion surgery. There is reasonably good preservation of motion. The short-term functional improvement is good, and we await further long-term outcome results. The authors felt that cervical disc replacement will have an important role in the treatment of cervical degenerative disc disease in the future.
