ArticleInternational journal of spine surgery2026
Analysis of 478 Revision Cases for Cervical Disc Arthroplasty Based on Their Biomechanical Design.
Article in International journal of spine surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo investigate the associations between cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) design parameters (constraint and material composition) and complications necessitating revision surgery, by analyzing data from the Food and Drug Administration's Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience reports, with the goal of identifying potential links between specific design features and complications leading to revision surgery.
methodsComplication reports for 9 Food and Drug Administration-approved CDAs were retrospectively extracted from the Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience database from January 2005 to September 2023. Each report was reviewed for potential revision surgery, CDA utilized, and the reported biomechanical complications. Devices were then compared for associated complications based on their constraints and material compositions.
resultsA total of 478 revision cases exhibiting biomechanical complications were included. The most common complication associated with revision surgery was migration, in a total of 164 cases (34.4%), followed by heterotopic ossification in 46 cases (9.6%) and osteolysis in 45 cases (9.4%). When categorizing for constraint or material composition, migration emerges as the primary complication associated with revision surgery for nonconstrained (28.4%) and semiconstrained (30.7%), as well as metal-on-metal (33.3%) and metal-on-polyethylene (41.1%) designs. Meanwhile, for polyetheretherketone-on-ceramics (PoC) and viscoelastic (VC) designs, osteolysis appeared as the most relevant complication in revision cases (PoC: 40% and VC: 28.1%).
conclusionMigration emerges as the primary biomechanical complication necessitating CDA revision surgeries, regardless of constraint design. Notably, newer materials (PoC and VC designs) demonstrate a shift toward osteolysis as the predominant complication, diverging from the patterns observed in traditional materials, where migration remained the dominant complication associated with metal-on-metal and metal-on-polyethylene revision surgery. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Knowledge of device-specific complication profiles-particularly that migration predominates in traditional CDA designs while osteolysis prevails in newer PEEK-on-ceramic and viscoelastic implants-can guide surgeons in implant selection and postoperative surveillance strategies. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4:
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.