Abstract
Study Design
Systematic Review.
Objectives
Cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) is a motion-preserving alternative to fusion for degenerative cervical disc disease. Implant dislocation, though rare, can lead to severe complications. Despite growing CDA adoption, no systematic synthesis of dislocation risk factors exists, leaving clinicians without evidence-based guidelines. To our knowledge, our study is the first detailed systematic review on CDA-related implant migrations. Our study aims to synthesize literature on CDA-related migration, identify risk factors and evaluate overall management outcomes.
Methods
A structured literature review was conducted, identifying 16 relevant studies through PubMed. Data were extracted on study design, patient demographics, prosthesis type, migration direction and timing, risk factors, management approaches, and clinical outcomes.
Results
Among 40 dislocation cases, anterior migration predominated (70.0%), linked to trauma, hyperlordosis, or poor osseointegration. Posterior migration (17.5%) was associated with polyethylene wear or osteolysis. 5 cases were of unspecified direction (12.5%). 62.5% of the patients underwent revision surgery, with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) making up 88% of these revision surgeries. Two deaths occurred due to postoperative complications.
Conclusions
Careful patient selection, optimal implant sizing, and adherence to surgical technique are critical to minimizing dislocation. Surgeons should avoid CDA in kyphotic patients and consider constrained designs in high-risk cases. Early recognition and prompt surgical intervention lead to favourable outcomes.
Keywords: cervical disc arthroplasty, implant migration, implant dislocation, cervical disc replacement
Introduction
Cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) is increasingly used as an alternative to fusion for cervical degenerative disc disease, offering motion preservation and reduced adjacent segment degeneration.1-16 CDA is a motion-preserving surgery that has been shown to improve clinical long-term outcomes, hence presenting itself as an alternative to fusion surgery.17-19 The preservation of segmental cervical range of motion prevents accelerated adjacent segment disease as compared to fusion surgeries. 20 Implant migration in CDA is generally defined as radiographically observed displacement of the prosthesis from its originally implanted position, with or without accompanying clinical symptoms while dislocations typically refer to a more substantial prosthesis displacement that generally leads to mechanical failure, loss of intended alignment, or the onset of clinical symptoms such as dysphagia or spinal cord compression resulting in neurological deficit, frequently necessitating surgical revision.2,9 Previous reports have highlighted varying mechanisms and risk factors contributing to implant migration, including surgical technique, implant design, and patient-specific factors.1-16 This systematic review aims to consolidate current literature on CDA-related implant migration, explore contributing factors, and offer actionable recommendations to mitigate the overall risk.
Methods
Literature Search
A systematic search of PubMed was performed in March 2025 following the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) for articles containing the terms ‘cervical disc replacement’, ‘cervical disc arthroplasty’, ‘implant migration’ and ‘dislocation’. Studies were limited to those published within 15 years (2010 to present), written in English, involved human subjects, and reported clinical or radiological findings related to CDA implant migration or dislocations. Two authors screened through the initial yield of 240 articles, removing duplicates and then subsequently screening through the abstracts of the articles. The authors then performed a full-text review of 35 articles, further narrowing down to 16 studies (see Figure 1).
Figure 1.
Flow diagram of the literature search
Study Selection
Of the 16 studies included in our study, 9 were case reports, 4 were retrospective studies and 3 were prospective studies with one of them being a randomised controlled trial. Studies that were not in English or does not significantly mention about implant migration or dislocations were excluded. The characteristics of the studies are summarised in Table 1.
Table 1.
Study Characteristics (Design, Prosthesis Type)
| S/N | Study (Year) | Study design | Sample size | Prosthesis type | Key notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Pelletier (2020) 1 | Case report | 1 | Mobi-C | First reported Mobi-C dislocation |
| 2 | Akyuva (2021) 2 | Retrospective study | 7 | Mixed (unspecified) | Multilevel CDAs included |
| 3 | Prod’homme (2021) 3 | Case report | 1 | Mobi-C | Intraprosthetic dislocation |
| 4 | Tsermoulas (2013) 4 | Case report | 1 | Mobi-C | Unconstrained design failure |
| 5 | Ko (2023) 5 | Retrospective study | 5 | Unspecified | Largest cohort; kyphosis analysis |
| 6 | Wagner (2016) 6 | Case report | 1 | Bryan | Trauma-induced migration |
| 7 | Wagner (2014) 7 | Case report | 1 | Bryan | Delayed osseointegration |
| 8 | Zhai (2017) 8 | Case report | 1 | Bryan (Bi-level) | First reported Bi-level Bryan migration |
| 9 | Lei (2017) 9 | Retrospective study | 9 | Bryan | Hyperlordosis-linked migration |
| 10 | Khan (2020) 10 | Case report | 1 | ProDisc-C | Intubation-triggered migration |
| 11 | Ozbek (2017) 11 | Retrospective study | 5 | Norm cervical disc | Case series on implant migrations |
| 12 | Zhang (2014) 12 | Prospective | 2 | Bryan | Asymptomatic migrations |
| 13 | Quan (2011) 13 | Prospective | 1 | Bryan | Long-term follow-up (8 years) |
| 14 | Hacker (2013) 14 | Prospective | 1 | Bryan | Late osteolysis complication |
| 15 | Niu (2017) 15 | Case report | 1 | ProDisc-C | Post-traumatic extrusion |
| 16 | Sager (2024) 16 | Case report | 2 | Bryan | Trauma, disappearance of implants on follow-up |
Data Extraction
Two independent reviewers independently extracted data which included the respective study designs, dislocation rates, prosthetic type and direction, potential risk factors, management approach and eventual clinical outcomes. This is summarised in Table 2. Any discrepancies or disputes were resolved via consensus discussion. Descriptive statistics were included to further analyse the summarised data. The heterogeneity of the data precluded a meta-analysis from being performed. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed using standardized tools, with the CARE Checklist being applied to case reports, while the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used for retrospective and prospective studies as seen in Table 1. Definitions of ‘migration’ and ‘dislocation’ were heterogeneous across the included studies. Several reports described migration qualitatively as visible prosthesis displacement on imaging.1,11 A minority of larger series reported incidence and timing without specifying a uniform millimetric cutoff. 5 When explicit numerical thresholds were absent, migration was inferred from radiological descriptions indicating prosthesis displacement relative to endplate margins or adjacent vertebral alignment. In this review, ‘dislocation’ was reserved for gross prosthesis displacement associated with mechanical failure, malalignment, neurological compromise, or the need for revision surgery.
Table 2.
Dislocation Outcomes (Direction, Risk Factors, Management)
| S/N | Study (Year) | Dislocation rate | Migration direction | Key risk factors | Intervention | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Pelletier (2020) | 1/1 (100%) | Anterior | Improper implant sizing, Smoking, | ACDF (C4-C6) | Symptom resolution |
| Previous surgery (C6-C7 fusion), | ||||||
| Multi-level surgery | ||||||
| 2 | Akyuva (2021) | 7/7 (100%) | Anterior (n = 5), posterior (n = 2) | Improper implant sizing, | ACDF (n = 6), corpectomy (n = 1) | 2 deaths (mediastinitis/shock) |
| Trauma, | ||||||
| Multilevel surgery | ||||||
| 3 | Prod’homme (2021) | 1/1 (100%) | Posterior (intra-prosthetic) | Polyethylene oxidation | Emergency ACDF (C5-C7) | Symptom resolution |
| 4 | Tsermoulas (2013) | 1/1 (100%) | Anterior | Coughing/vomiting, Unconstrained design | Urgent ACDF | Symptom resolution |
| 5 | Ko (2023) | 5/756 (0.7%) | Unspecified | Preop kyphosis | ACDF | Symptom resolution |
| 6 | Wagner (2016) | 1/1 (100%) | Anterior | Low-energy trauma | ACDF (C5-C6) | Symptom resolution |
| 7 | Wagner (2014) | 1/1 (100%) | Anterior | Delayed osseointegration | Conservative | Symptom resolution |
| 8 | Zhai (2017) | 1/1 (100%) | Anterior (bi-level) | Endplate destruction, improper implant sizing | Corpectomy | Symptom resolution |
| 9 | Lei (2017) | 9/46 (19.6%) | Anterior | Hyperlordotic positioning | Conservative (cervical collar) | Persistent neck pain, reduced range of motion (ROM) |
| 10 | Khan (2020) | 1/1 (100%) | Anterior | Mechanical intubation | Implant removal + ACDF | Symptom resolution |
| 11 | Ozbek (2017) | 5/163 (0.3%) | Anterior | Endplate destruction, improper implant sizing, | Prosthesis removal only (1/5) + fusion (4/5) | Symptom resolution |
| Trauma | ||||||
| 12 | Zhang (2014) | 2/64 (3.1%) | Posterior | Asymptomatic | Conservative | No intervention needed |
| 13 | Quan (2011) | 1/27 (3.7%) | Posterior | Asymptomatic | Conservative | No intervention needed |
| 14 | Hacker (2013) | 1/94 (1.1%) | Posterior | Possible osteolysis | Implant removal + ACDF | Labelled as “fair” outcome |
| 15 | Niu (2017) | 1/1 (100%) | Anterior | Paragliding trauma | ACDF | Symptom resolution |
| 16 | Sager (2024) | 2/2 (100%) | Anterior | Trauma – fell off bicycle | Conservative | Symptom resolution |
Results
This systematic review analyzed 16 studies published between 2011 and 2024, encompassing 40 documented cases of cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) implant dislocation. The included studies represented a heterogeneous mix of study designs, including 9 case reports (56.3%), 4 retrospective cohort studies (25%), and 3 prospective studies (18.8%), one of which was a randomized controlled trial. Sample sizes ranged from single-case reports to a large-scale retrospective analysis of 756 patients. 5 The reported dislocation rates demonstrated significant variability across studies, ranging from 0.3% in population-based analyses to 19.6% in specific high-risk subpopulations, particularly those with hyperlordotic cervical alignment.9,11 The quality of included studies was evaluated using standardized tools appropriate to study design as seen in Table 3. Case reports (n = 9) were assessed using the CARE checklist, with most rated moderate (n = 6) and three rated as high quality. Cohort studies (n = 7) included both retrospective and prospective designs and were assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Among them, 5 were rated high quality (≥7/9) and 2 as moderate. Overall, the included studies were of moderate to high quality, though generalizability remains limited due to small sample sizes and heterogeneity.
Table 3.
Quality Assessment of Included Studies
| S/N | Study (author, year) | Study design | Level of evidence | Quality assessment tool | Score | Quality rating |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Pelletier (2020) | Case report | Level IV | CARE checklist | 7/8 | High |
| 2 | Akyuva (2021) | Retrospective cohort | Level III | Newcastle-Ottawa scale | 6/9 | Moderate |
| 3 | Prod’homme (2021) | Case report | Level IV | CARE checklist | 6/8 | Moderate |
| 4 | Tsermoulas (2013) | Case report | Level IV | CARE checklist | 6/8 | Moderate |
| 5 | Ko (2023) | Retrospective cohort | Level III | Newcastle-Ottawa scale | 8/9 | High |
| 6 | Wagner (2016) | Case report | Level IV | CARE checklist | 7/8 | High |
| 7 | Wagner (2014) | Case report | Level IV | CARE checklist | 7/8 | High |
| 8 | Zhai (2017) | Case report | Level IV | CARE checklist | 6/8 | Moderate |
| 9 | Lei (2017) | Retrospective cohort | Level III | Newcastle-Ottawa scale | 7/9 | High |
| 10 | Khan (2020) | Case report | Level IV | CARE checklist | 6/8 | Moderate |
| 11 | Ozbek (2017) | Retrospective cohort | Level III | Newcastle-Ottawa scale | 7/9 | High |
| 12 | Zhang (2014) | Prospective cohort | Level II | Newcastle-Ottawa scale | 7/9 | High |
| 13 | Quan (2011) | Prospective cohort | Level II | Newcastle-Ottawa scale | 6/9 | Moderate |
| 14 | Hacker (2013) | Prospective cohort (RCT) | Level I | Newcastle-Ottawa scale | 7/9 | High |
| 15 | Niu (2017) | Case report | Level IV | CARE checklist | 6/8 | Moderate |
| 16 | Sager (2024) | Case report | Level IV | CARE checklist | 6/8 | Moderate |
Prosthesis Type
The distribution of implant dislocations by prosthesis type is summarized in Table 4. The Bryan prosthesis was reported in eight of the sixteen included studies and accounted for 45 % (18 cases) of all documented dislocations. Mobi-C and ProDisc-C appeared in three and two studies respectively, contributing 3 (7.5 %) and 2 (5 %) cases, while the Norm Cervical Disc accounted for 5 (12.5 %) dislocations in one study. 11 Two additional reports described mixed or unspecified prosthesis types comprising the remaining 30 % of cases. These events were strongly correlated with improper implant sizing and endplate violation during surgical implantation. All Norm disc failures were anterior migrations with particularly strong associations with endplate destruction, improperly sized implants and trauma. However, it must be noted that these proportions presented in Table 4 represent the frequency of each implant type among published dislocation reports. As the total number of implanted devices was rarely provided, these figures cannot be interpreted as incidence rates or used for direct inter-device comparison.
Table 4.
Type of Prosthesis
| Prosthesis type | Number of studies (n) | Number of dislocation cases (n/%) |
|---|---|---|
| Bryan | 8 | 18 (45.0%) |
| Mobi-C | 3 | 3 (7.5%) |
| ProDisc-C | 2 | 2 (5.0%) |
| Norm cervical disc | 1 | 5 (12.5%) |
| Unspecified/Mixed | 2 | 12 (30.0%) |
| Total | 16 | 40 |
Direction of Migrations
Anterior migration refers to forward displacement of the prosthesis towards the prevertebral soft tissues or oesophagus, whereas posterior migration denotes displacement into the spinal canal with potential neural compression. Figure 2 provides a schematic representation of these directions, while Figure 3 presents a lateral radiograph from an illustrative case of a Mobi-C anterior migration. 1 The directional analysis of implant migrations revealed distinct patterns with important clinical implications (Table 5). Anterior migrations predominated, accounting for 28 cases (70.0%) of the total dislocations while posterior migrations accounted for 7 cases (17.5%) of the total dislocations. The clinical urgency of these cases was evident in the high revision rate, with 62.5% (25/40) requiring surgical intervention. The remaining 12.5% (n = 5) of dislocations with unspecified direction primarily derived from older studies with limited radiographic documentation and were successfully managed conservatively with favourable outcomes.
Figure 2.
Schematic illustration of anterior and posterior migration of a CDA implant
Figure 3.
Clinical radiograph showing anterior migration of a CDA implant, modified from Pelletier et al. 1 .
Table 5.
Direction of Implant Migration
| Migration direction | Cases (n/%) | Revision surgery rate (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Anterior | 28 (70.0%) | 57.1% (16/28) |
| Posterior | 7 (17.5%) | 57.1% (4/7) |
| Unspecified | 5 (12.5%) | 100% (5/5) |
| Total | 40 | 62.5% (25/40) |
Management of Migrations
As seen in Table 6, Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) emerged as the predominant intervention, employed in 88% of cases while prosthesis removal without fusion was attempted in 1 case (4%) and corpectomy was performed in 2 cases (8%). In cases managed conservatively, there was a 30.8% success rate without neurological deterioration or persistent symptoms. The analysis identified two procedure-related fatalities (5.3% of cases), with both occurring following revision surgery for anterior dislocation (n = 1) and posterior dislocation respectively (n = 1). 2 These tragic outcomes resulted from postoperative mediastinitis induced by oesophageal perforation in one case and spinal cord injury in another, underscoring the potentially life-threatening complications associated with revision procedures. 2
Table 6.
Surgical Management of Implant Migration
| Surgical management | Cases (n (%)) |
|---|---|
| ACDF | 22 (88%) |
| Implant removal without fusion | 1 (4%) |
| Corpectomy | 2 (8%) |
| Total | 25 |
Risk Factor Synthesis
This review identified a consistent set of clinical and technical factors associated with implant dislocation following cervical disc arthroplasty, as summarised in Table 7. Trauma, including both accidental injuries and iatrogenic events such as mechanical intubation, emerged as a frequent trigger for early implant migration, particularly during the vulnerable period before complete osseointegration.4,6,10,15 Surgical technique played a central role in many reported failures. Improper implant sizing, particularly undersizing, was frequently linked to mechanical instability and anterior migration.1,11 Violation of the vertebral endplates during surgical preparation compromised implant fixation in several cases.8,11 Existing segmental misalignments (preoperative kyphosis and hyperlordosis) in patients may also predispose them to a higher risk of implant migrations.5,9 The interpretation of prosthesis-specific findings requires caution. As summarised in Table 4, the Bryan prosthesis appeared most frequently among published dislocation reports, followed by Mobi-C, Norm Cervical Disc, and ProDisc-C. This predominance most likely reflects the greater number of studies that have investigated the Bryan device rather than a higher intrinsic failure rate. The data cannot be used to calculate comparative failure rates or establish relative risk between the different implant types. Collectively, these findings highlight the multifactorial nature of CDA implant dislocation and underscore the need for thorough preoperative assessment, careful patient selection, and technical precision tailored to both the patient’s anatomy and the implant design.
Table 7.
Risk Factor Synthesis
| Risk factor | Supporting studies | Key evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Trauma (including iatrogenic) | Wagner (2016), | - Low-energy blunt trauma induced migration (Wagner 2016) |
| Niu (2017), | - Paragliding accident (Niu) | |
| Khan (2020), | - Intubation-triggered migration (Khan) | |
| Tsermoulas (2013), Sager (2024) | - Coughing/vomiting post-op (Tsermoulas) | |
| - Post-op fall from bicycle riding (Sager) | ||
| Improper | Pelletier (2020), | - Undersized implants, overloading |
| Implant sizing | Ozbek (2017) | |
| Endplate violation | Zhai (2017), | - Bi-level endplate destruction (Zhai) |
| Ozbek (2017) | - Endplate integrity loss with fracture seen on axial sections (Ozbek) | |
| Segmental misalignment | Lei (2017), | −19.6% dislocation rate in hyperlordotic patients (Lei) |
| Ko (2023) | - Preop kyphosis (Ko) | |
| Implant/Interface failure | Prod’homme (2021), | - Intraprosthetic dislocation (Prod’homme |
| Hacker (2013), | - Delayed osteolysis (Hacker) and osseointegration (Wagner 2014) | |
| Wagner (2014) | ||
| Unspecified | Zhang (2014), | - N/A |
| Quan (2011), | ||
| Akyuva (2021) |
Discussion
Implant migration following cervical disc arthroplasty is a multifactorial phenomenon. Anterior migrations were more prevalent and often related to biomechanical or technical issues. Posterior migrations, although less frequent, tended to present with more severe neurological compromise. The findings of this systematic review illuminate critical patterns in cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) implant dislocations, with implications for surgical decision-making. This systematic review highlights two overarching themes in CDA dislocation: the importance of technical precision during surgery and the need for vigilant postoperative risk management.
Biomechanical Vulnerabilities and Technical Precision in Surgical Execution
Anterior migrations which accounted for 70.0% of cases were strongly associated with biomechanical overload— often from trauma, implant sizing errors or endplate compromise as seen in Table 6. These failures tend to cluster in early postoperative periods when osseointegration is incomplete. In contrast, posterior dislocations (17.5 %) typically resulted from late degenerative processes like polyethylene wear or osteolysis, often manifesting >9 months post-implantation.3,14 This temporal dichotomy underscores that anterior failures reflect acute mechanical factors, while posterior failures reflect chronic material limitations. However, it is worth noting that posterior migrations have been described to have a higher rate of mortality overall. 2 Particular caution is warranted for osteoporotic patients, given the established association between poor bone quality and late osteolysis-related failures. 14 Patients with existing segmental misalignments (kyphosis) should also be excluded from cervical disc arthroplasty to minimise the potential risk of disc migrations. 5 The single reported case of intra-prosthetic dislocation involved rupture of a Mobi-C polyethylene core at nine months post-implantation, highlighting possible material limitations. 3
Surgical technique emerges as a critical modifiable factor in dislocation prevention. Implant sizing proves particularly crucial as seen in the studies done by Pelletier and Ozbek et al. where undersized implants resulted in overloading and eventual implant migration.1,11 The prosthesis should cover the endplates of the vertebrae and midline positioning is key to minimise the risks of migration. This may be facilitated by pre-operative imaging such as computed tomography (CT) to enhance surgical planning.
Endplate preservation during surgical preparation represents another key consideration. Endplate destruction was noted in the case report by Zhai et al. which increased the possibility of implant migration. 8 The normal endplates function to prevent prosthesis migration, subsidence into the bone and fusion which may disrupt the prosthesis itself. 11 Thus, a broken endplate may result in higher incidence of implant migrations post-operatively. 11 As cervical disc arthroplasty becomes more popular, surgeons should carefully handle the endplate and choose appropriate implants. While ACDF was widely employed for most revision surgeries in the studies included in our study, we note that Zhai et al. proposed a single-level corpectomy with iliac bone graft for cases of endplate destruction of two vertebras, resulting in symptom resolution. 8
Managing Post-Operative Risk
The early postoperative period represents a particular window of vulnerability due to incomplete osseointegration. Even minor trauma or manoeuvres involving cervical hyperflexion or hyperextension may disrupt the bone-implant interface during this period. 10 Khan et al reported a notable case in 2020 where routine laryngoscopy just 30 days post-implantation displaced a well-positioned ProDisc-C prosthesis anteriorly by 8.5 mm 10 . Hence, special considerations should apply to airway management in the early post-operative period. For 10 months post-implantation, any required intubation should employ fibre-optic or video laryngoscopy with manual in-line stabilization to avoid displacing immature implants. 10 This case underscores how even relatively low-energy forces can disrupt the immature bone-implant interface before osseointegration completes.7,10 The initial 6-month osseointegration period demands vigilant monitoring. Routine radiographic surveillance at regular intervals is essential for early detection of asymptomatic migrations.5,7 Clinicians should maintain a high index of suspicion in patients presenting with new-onset dysphagia, neck pain, or neurologic symptoms, particularly after trauma with low threshold for immediate imaging given the potential for rapid neurological deterioration. 2 Conservative management may be appropriate for asymptomatic, non-progressive migrations, but symptomatic or unstable dislocations require prompt surgical intervention.
Study Limitations
We note several limitations in our manuscript. The majority of included studies were case reports or small retrospective series, limiting the generalizability of the findings. Additionally, heterogeneity in reporting migration direction, prosthesis types, and outcome measures complicates direct comparison across studies. There is also ambiguity on the exact definition of implant migration and dislocations, which could have precipitated the exclusion of more studies. A uniform radiological definition of migration or dislocation could not be consistently extracted due to heterogeneity in reporting thresholds. The absence of long-term data on newer implants also remains a critical gap that future prospective trials should address.
Conclusion
Cervical disc arthroplasty dislocation, although rare, follows distinct patterns shaped by surgical technique, implant design, and patient-specific risk factors. Anterior migrations are typically early mechanical failures linked to trauma, improper sizing and endplate violation, while posterior migrations tend to occur later due to material wear or osteolysis. Preoperative planning should include assessment for kyphotic alignment, osteoporosis, or other contraindications. Intraoperatively, meticulous sizing and preservation of endplate integrity are essential. Postoperatively, the early osseointegration window requires special care, including routine interval imaging and modified airway management where necessary. When implant dislocation occurs, early recognition and timely revision, most often with ACDF, are key to optimizing outcomes though asymptomatic patients without neurological deficits may be managed conservatively. These findings provide an evidence-based framework for reducing the risk of CDA implant migration and enhancing patient safety.
Footnotes
Author’s Contribution: AA was involved in study design, analyzing and interpreting study data and writing of the manuscript. SKD, LD, HLTT were involved in study design. CZ was involved in study concept, design, analyzing and interpreting study data and writing of the manuscript.
Funding: The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
ORCID iD
Amirzeb Aurangzeb https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3536-9145
Data Availability Statement
All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article*.
References
- 1.Pelletier Y, Gille O, Vital JM. An anterior dislocation after Mobi-C cervical disc arthroplasty. Asian J Neurosurg. 2020;15(03):719-721. doi: 10.4103/ajns.AJNS_147_20 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Akyuva Y, Özger Ö, Urfalı B, Kaplan N, Aykut AM. Complications of cervical disc prosthesis dislocation: a retrospective clinical study. Jarem. 2021;11(1):1-4. doi: 10.4274/jarem.galenos.2020.3774 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Prod’homme M, Grasset D, Boscherini D. Posterior intraprosthetic dislocation of cervical arthroplasty: illustrative case. J Neurosurg Case Lessons. 2021;2(23):1. doi: 10.3171/CASE21500 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Tsermoulas G, Bhattathiri PS. Anterior migration of prosthesis following cervical arthroplasty. Br J Neurosurg. 2013;27(1):132-133. doi: 10.3109/02688697.2012.703354 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Ko CC, Feng BK, Kuo YH, et al. Incidence and risk factor of implant dislocation after cervical disk arthroplasty: a retrospective cohort analysis of 756 patients. Neurosurgery. 2023;93(2):330-338. doi: 10.1227/neu.0000000000002413 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Wagner SC, Kang DG, Helgeson MD. Traumatic migration of the Bryan cervical disc arthroplasty. Glob Spine J. 2016;6(1):15-20. doi: 10.1055/s-0035-1550092 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Wagner SC, Kang DG, Helgeson MD. Implant migration after Bryan cervical disc arthroplasty. Spine J. 2014;14(10):2513-2514. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2014.05.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Zhai JL, Chang X, Hu JH, Weng XS. A case of implant migration following Bi-level cervical disc arthroplasty. Chin Med J. 2017;130(4):497-498. doi: 10.4103/0366-6999.199843 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Lei T, Tong T, Miao D, et al. Anterior migration after Bryan Cervical Disc Arthroplasty: the relationship between hyperlordosis and its impact on clinical outcomes. World Neurosurg. 2017;101:534-539. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2017.02.071 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Khan MQ, Prim MD, Alexopoulos G, Kemp JM, Mercier PJ. Cervical disc arthroplasty migration following mechanical intubation: a case presentation and review of the literature. World Neurosurg. 2020;144:244-249. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2020.08.037 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Ozbek Z, Ozkara E, Arslantaş A. Implant migration in cervical disk arthroplasty. World Neurosurg. 2017;97:390-397. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2016.10.023 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Zhang Z, Zhu W, Zhu L, Du Y. Midterm outcomes of total cervical total disc replacement with Bryan prosthesis. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2014;24(S1):275-281. doi: 10.1007/s00590-014-1424-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Quan GMY, Vital JM, Hansen S, Pointillart V. Eight-year clinical and radiological follow-up of the Bryan cervical disc arthroplasty. Spine. 2011;36(8):639-646. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181dc9b51 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Hacker FM, Babcock RM, Hacker RJ. Very late complications of cervical arthroplasty. Spine. 2013;38(26):2223-2226. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000000060 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Niu T, Hoffman H, Lu D. Cervical artificial disc extrusion after a paragliding accident. Surg Neurol Int. 2017;8(1):138. doi: 10.4103/sni.sni_386_15 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Sager PR, Seule MA, Külling FA. The insane path of two cervical intervertebral implants: late migration, esophageal ingrowth, and rectal excretion: an exceptional case report. J Spine Surg. 2024;10(4):738-744. doi: 10.21037/jss-24-23 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Gornet MF, Lanman TH, Burkus JK, et al. Two-level cervical disc arthroplasty versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: 10-year outcomes of a prospective, randomized investigational device exemption clinical trial. J Neurosurg Spine. 2019;31(4):508-518. doi: 10.3171/2019.4.SPINE19157 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Parish JM, Coric D. Cervical arthroplasty: long-term outcomes of FDA IDE trials. Glob Spine J. 2020;10(2_suppl):61S-64S. doi: 10.1177/2192568219898154 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Janssen ME, Zigler JE, Spivak JM, Delamarter RB, Darden BV, Kopjar B. ProDisc-C total disc replacement versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for single-level symptomatic cervical disc disease. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2015;97(21):1738-1747. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.N.01186 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Shin JJ, Kim KR, Son DW, et al. Cervical disc arthroplasty: what we know in 2020 and a literature review. J Orthop Surg. 2021;29(1_suppl):23094990211006934. doi: 10.1177/23094990211006934 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article*.