SPECIAL FOCUS: SpineCervical disc arthroplasty a practical reviewMcHugh, Briana; Spivak, Jeffrey M.b Author Information aDepartment of Neurosurgery, Yale University School of Medicine and Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, NYU Hospital for Joint Diseases bDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, NYU Hospital for Joint Diseases, Director, NYUHJD Spine Center Financial Disclosure: Dr. Spivak is consultant for Synthes Spine (Prodisc Teaching, Prodisc Publications Committee). Dr. McHugh has no financial disclosures. Correspondence to Jeffrey M. Spivak, MD, Assistant Professor, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, NYU Hospital for Joint Diseases, Director, NYUHJD Spine Center, 301 East 17th Street, Suite 400, New York, NY 10003 Tel: 212 598 6696; fax: +212 598 6723 e-mail. [email protected] Current Orthopaedic Practice: May/June 2012 - Volume 23 - Issue 3 - p 172-176 doi: 10.1097/BCO.0b013e3182512592 Buy Metrics Abstract After anterior discectomy and decompression for cervical radiculopathy and myelopathy, cervical fusion has been the mainstay of treatment for decades. Ongoing investigation into cervical disc arthroplasty, with the goals of motion preservation and reduced adjacent segment degeneration, is occurring with enthusiasm. Understanding and recreating physiologic spinal motion is critical to these efforts and is an evolving process. Prospective randomized United States Food and Drug Administration regulated trials are now available for several devices with promising short-term and mid-term results. Long-term data are awaited with anticipation regarding the clinical, radiographic, and quality-based outcome measures. Ultimately, the decision to incorporate cervical disc arthroplasty into day-to-day practice will stem largely from the clinical outcome of the procedure, the long-term durability of the device, and the incidence of symptomatic adjacent segment degeneration, as compared with arthrodesis. © 2012 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.