ReviewMedical devices (Auckland, N.Z.)2014
The Mobi-C cervical disc for one-level and two-level cervical disc replacement: a review of the literature.
Review in Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Adjacent Segment Degeneration Following Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Versus the Bryan Cervical Disc Arthroplasty.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2017Trial
- Cervical Disc Arthroplasty (CDA) versus Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion (ACDF) for Two-Level Cervical Disc Degenerative Disease: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Cervical Disc Arthroplasty: Rationale, Designs, and Results of Randomized Controlled Trials.International journal of spine surgery · 2024Article
- Emerging Technologies within Spine Surgery.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Biomaterials in Spinal Implants: A Review.Neurospine · 2020Article
- Evidence-based use of arthroplasty in cervical degenerative disc disease.International orthopaedics · 2019Review
- Comparative Study Between M6-C and Mobi-C Cervical Artificial Disc Replacement: Biomechanical Outcomes and Comparison with Normative Data.Orthopaedic surgery · 2018Article
- Are Controversial Issues in Cervical Total Disc Replacement Resolved or Unresolved?: A Review of Literature and Recent Updates.Asian spine journal · 2018Review
- Preoperative T1 Slope as a Predictor of Change in Cervical Alignment and Range of Motion After Cervical Disc Arthroplasty.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2017Article
- Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion surgery versus total disc replacement: A comparative study with minimum of 10-year follow-up.Scientific reports · 2017Article
- Heterotopic ossification and clinical outcome in nonconstrained cervical arthroplasty.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) is a novel motion-preserving procedure that is an alternative to fusion. The Mobi-C disc prosthesis, one of many Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved devices for CDA, is the only FDA-approved prosthesis for two-level CDA. Hence, it may allow for improved outcomes compared with multilevel fusion procedures. PURPOSE: To critically assess the available literature on CDA with the Mobi-C prosthesis, with a focus on two-level CDA.
methodsAll clinical articles involving the Mobi-C disc prosthesis for CDA through September 1, 2014 were identified on Medline. Any paper that presented Mobi-C CDA clinical results was included. Study design, sample size, length of follow-up, use of statistical analysis, quality of life outcome scores, conflict of interest, and complications were recorded.
resultsFifteen studies were included that investigated Mobi-C CDA, only one of which was a level Ib randomized control trial. All studies included showed non-inferiority of one-level Mobi-C CDA to one-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). Only one study analyzed outcomes of one-level versus two-level Mobi-C CDA, and only one study analyzed two-level Mobi-C CDA versus two-level ACDF. In comparison with other cervical disc prostheses, the Mobi-C prosthesis is associated with higher rates of heterotopic ossification (HO). Studies with conflicts of interest reported lower rates of HO. Adjacent segment degeneration or disease, along with other complications, were not assessed in most studies.
conclusionOne-level Mobi-C CDA is non-inferior, but not superior, to one-level ACDF for patients with cervical degenerative disc disease. The Mobi-C CDA procedure is associated with high rates of HO. Two-level Mobi-C CDA may be superior to two-level ACDF. However, insufficient evidence exists, thereby mandating a need for unbiased, well-designed prospective studies with well-defined outcomes in the future.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.