Commercial

Artificial Intervertebral Cervical Disc Insertion (Independence Administrators)
11.14.19p

Policy


ARTIFICIAL INTERVERTEBRAL CERVICAL DISC INSERTION

MEDICALLY NECESSARY
Artificial intervertebral disc insertion for the cervical spine, using an FDA-approved device, is considered medically necessary and, therefore, covered for the treatment of one cervical spine level from C3 to C7 in skeletally mature individuals when all of the following conditions are met:
  • The individual has symptomatic, intractable cervical degenerative disc disease (e.g., radicular neck and/or arm pain, functional/neurological deficit) or herniated disc, confirmed by radiographic studies.
  • The individual either
    • Has failed at least 6 weeks of conservative non-operative management, including active pain management program or protocol, under the direction of a physician, with pharmacotherapy that addresses neuropathic pain and other pain sources and a formal course of physical therapy OR
    • Has severe or rapidly progressive symptoms of nerve root or spinal cord compression requiring hospitalization or immediate surgical treatment
  • The individual does not have a cervical anatomical deformity or compromised vertebral bodies at the treated level (e.g., ankylosing spondylitis, rheumatoid arthritis).
  • The individual has not had prior surgery at the treated level.
  • The individual has not had prior spinal fusion at an adjacent cervical level.

Simultaneous cervical artificial intervertebral disc implantation at a second contiguous level is considered medically necessary, and therefore, covered if the above criteria are met for each disc level, and the device is FDA-approved for 2 levels (e.g., Mobi-C, Prestige LP).

Subsequent cervical artificial intervertebral disc implantation at an adjacent level is considered medically necessary and, therefore, covered when all of the following are met:
  • Criteria for cervical artificial intervertebral disc implantation listed above are met; AND
  • The device is FDA-approved for 2 levels (e.g., Mobi-C, Prestige LP); AND
  • The planned subsequent procedure is at a different cervical level than the initial cervical artificial disc replacement; AND
  • Clinical documentation that the initial cervical artificial intervertebral disc implantation is fully healed.

Artificial intervertebral disc insertion with simultaneously performed (i.e., hybrid) spinal fusion surgery is considered experimental/investigational and, therefore, not covered because the safety and/or effectiveness of this service cannot be established by the available published peer-reviewed literature.

All other uses for artificial intervertebral disc insertion for the cervical spine are considered experimental/investigational and, therefore, not covered because the safety and/or effectiveness of this service cannot be established by the available published peer-reviewed literature.



Guidelines

BENEFIT APPLICATION

Subject to the terms and conditions of the applicable benefit contract, artificial intervertebral disc insertion for the cervical spine is covered under the medical benefits of the Company's products when the medical necessity criteria listed in this medical policy are met.​

US FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION (FDA) STATUS

There are numerous devices approved by the FDA as artificial intervertebral disc devices for use in the cervical spine.

Description


Artificial intervertebral disc insertion is an emerging technology intended for use in the cervical or lumbar spine to treat degenerative disc disease (DDD). DDD is a common cause of neck and/or low back pain. DDD is often defined as discogenic back pain with degeneration of the disc confirmed by individual history and radiographic studies. When conservative treatment for the disease (e.g., nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs [NSAIDs], physical therapy) fails to relieve pain, a common surgical approach is spinal fusion. However, by surgically altering the biomechanics of the back, spinal fusion may also cause premature disc degeneration at adjacent levels, which results in increased pain and decreased range of motion (ROM). This is a notable concern for younger individuals. The artificial intervertebral disc insertion procedure (i.e., spinal arthroplasty or total disc replacement) was developed with the goal of avoiding the problems associated with spinal fusion surgery, which include a decreased ROM.

Artificial intervertebral disc insertion is intended to preserve ROM at the operative level once the diseased spinal disc is surgically removed, and an artificial disc is inserted between the adjoining vertebrae. The artificial disc generally consists of two metal endplates and a central, free component that moves within the disc space during spinal motion. Theoretically, the artificial intervertebral disc insertion procedure is designed to reduce or eliminate back pain and restore disc height while maintaining spinal curvature, flexibility, and load bearing. However, there are concerns that the use of an artificial disc increases the potential for implant failure due to device fracture, dislocation or wear, bone implant interface failure due to subsidence (i.e., sinking or settling in a bone), dislocation migration, or vertebral body fracture, and host response to the implant, which may include adverse events such as osteolysis, heterotopic ossification, and pseudotumor formation.

Clinical studies have indicated that successful outcomes are typically only achieved by well-trained surgeons. This underscores the difficulty associated with the artificial intervertebral disc insertion procedure, especially when compared to spinal fusion, which is often considered the established standard for the treatment of DDD and low back pain. Additionally, there remain concerns about the need for revision surgery following artificial disc insertion, which often requires the disc to be removed. It is considered to be more complicated than revision surgery following spinal fusion due to the need for the abdomen to be opened, which results in severe blood loss.

CERVICAL ARTIFICIAL DISC REPLACEMENT

Cervical DDD is typically caused by spinal spondylosis (i.e., degenerative osteoarthritis), which causes intervertebral disc deterioration of the cervical spine. Symptoms may include radicular arm pain, weakness, and paresthesias (i.e., abnormal sensation). The prevalence of cervical DDD that is secondary to spinal spondylosis increases with age, with an estimated 60% of individuals older than 40 years having radiographic evidence of cervical DDD. By 65 years of age, approximately 95% of men and 70% of women have at least one degenerative change evidenced by radiography.

Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is considered the definitive surgical treatment for symptomatic cervical DDD, and the resolution of pain and neurologic symptoms has been demonstrated in 80% to 100% of individuals undergoing ACDF. However, cervical artificial disc replacement (CADR) has been proposed as an alternative to ACDF for the treatment of individuals with neck pain, arm pain, nerve irritation, and/or spinal cord irritation due to cervical DDD that has not improved with at least six weeks of conservative management alone. It is hypothesized that CADR has the potential to reduce the risk of adjacent level DDD above or below a fusion site and to preserve ROM. However, while the intended patient populations for CADR and ACDF are similar, CADR should be limited to the treatment of one cervical spine level in individuals with DDD, without cervical anatomical deformities or compromised vertebral bodies at the treated level (e.g., ankylosing spondylitis, rheumatoid arthritis). Additionally, individuals should not have had prior spinal fusion at an adjacent cervical level, which may compromise the effectiveness of CADR at the treated level.

The FDA has approved several artificial disc devices for the treatment of DDD of the cervical spine including, but not limited to, ProDisc®-C (Synthes Spine, Inc., West Chester, PA), Prestige® ST Cervical Disc System (Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Memphis, TN), BRYAN® Cervical Disc (Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Memphis, TN), PCM Cervical (NuVasive, Inc., San Diego, CA), Secure®-C (Globus Medical, Inc., Audobon, PA), and Mobi-C® (LDR Spine USA, Inc., Austin, TX). Due to concerns about the long-term safety and effectiveness of these devices, post-approval studies were required to assess long-term data. These devices are indicated for spinal arthroplasty at one cervical spine level from C3 to C7 in skeletally mature individuals with DDD. There are multiple ongoing clinical trials which assess artificial intervertebral disc devices for the use in the cervical spine. The current FDA approvals were based on randomized clinical trials using a noninferiority trial design in which cervical artificial intervertebral disc insertion was compared to a type of spinal fusion surgery. The available published peer-reviewed literature for Secure®-C, if any, is limited. In August 2013, the Mobi-C® cervical disc received FDA approval for use in both one-level and two-level CADR.

The purpose of a noninferiority trial is to show that the experimental treatment is not clinically worse than (i.e., inferior to) the control treatment by a pre-specified margin, referred to as the noninferiority margin. A noninferiority trial is built on the assumption that the control has been proven effective. A superiority trial is a first choice for RCT trial design because it provides direct evidence of effect. In such a trial, the new treatment or device demonstrates a superior clinical result. A noninferiority trial should be a last choice for trial design because it offers indirect evidence of a treatment or device’s effectiveness. These studies lack robust effectiveness data because decisions on degree of inferiority margins can be complex or biased, appropriate sample size can be difficult, and the results can be misleading and misinterpreted. The appropriateness of utilizing a noninferiority trial design for artificial intervertebral disc insertion has been questioned because the control (i.e., spinal fusion) has not been adequately studied to determine which type of spinal fusion surgery (e.g., anterior lumbar interbody fusion, posterior fusion) is the most effective or whether spinal fusion surgery is more effective than conservative management alone.

Currently, the US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has not issued a national or local coverage determination for CADR.

PEER-REVIEWED LITERATURE
In a prospective, randomized, noninferiority clinical trial with a noninferiority margin of 10%, individuals who received the ProDisc®-C cervical disc were compared to those who underwent ACDF. For several reasons related to the primary composite endpoint (i.e., overall success rate) and the overall ProDisc®-C study design, it is difficult to discern a real health benefit from the ProDisc®-C cervical disc compared with fusion. The reported statistical superiority was based on ad-hoc analysis that was driven primarily by a single outcome measure (revision of fusion vs. removal of the implant). Furthermore, the study failed to demonstrate statistical superiority for the NDI, which is a clinically validated, multidimensional outcome measure of pain and disability caused by cervical DDD. Lastly, the study was not blinded, which has the potential to bias outcome assessments in favor of the novel ProDisc®-C treatment over the conventional fusion treatment. Ultimately, the FDA required a 7-year PAS to evaluate the long-term safety and effectiveness.

In a prospective randomized controlled trial, Nabhan et al. (2007) compared the safety and effectiveness of ProDisc®-C with ACDF. Thirty-three individuals with symptomatic soft disc herniation were randomized to CADR or ACDF (control group). These individuals were followed for 24 weeks and had a mean age of 45 years. Outcome measurements included segmental ROM postoperatively and neck and arm pain. The authors noted that segmental ROM was significantly better for extension and right-sided bending in the CADR group compared with the ACDF group (p < 0.05). However, there was a statistically significant difference between both groups for right-sided axial rotation. The authors concluded that while neck and arm pain results were comparable between the two groups, loss of cervical segmental ROM was significantly higher in the ACDF. The study is limited in its small sample size, short-term follow-up period, and lack of blinding.

In a prospective, randomized, noninferiority clinical trial with a noninferiority margin of 10%, individuals were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to ACDF (control group) or CADR with the BRYAN® cervical disc and were followed for 24 months. Outcome measurements included the NDI, the Neck Pain Score, and SF-36 scores. The authors demonstrated that CADR had statistically significant improvements when compared with ACDF (p < 0.05). The study is limited in its small sample size and short-term follow-up period. Additionally, the authors reported a low participation rate due to patient dissatisfaction with randomization, which may contribute to potential bias. The FDA required a 10-year PAS to evaluate the long-term safety and effectiveness of the BRYAN® Cervical Disc. Data will be collected at 5, 7, and 10 years. Furthermore, the FDA approval is contingent upon the completion of a 5-year enhanced surveillance study, which will more fully characterize adverse events when the device is used in a broader population.

In a prospective, multicenter, randomized FDA-approved IDE clinical study, individuals who underwent CADR with the PCM® cervical disc were compared to those undergoing ACDF with allograft and plate control and were followed for 2 years. A total of 416 individuals with a degenerated single-level cervical disc from C3-C4 or C7-T1 were enrolled in the clinical trial and 403 were ultimately treated. The mean age was 45 years old. Individuals were randomly assigned to be treated with either the PCM cervical disc or ACDF. Outcome measurements included NDI, VAS neck and arm pain scores, and patient satisfaction questionnaires. This was in addition to radiographic and clinical evaluations. Overall success was defined as at least 20% improvement in NDI with the absence of radiographic or major complications. At 24 months, overall success was achieved by 75.1% of PCM® individuals compared with 64.9% of ACDF individuals. The study is limited in its short-term follow-up period.

In a prospective, randomized controlled trial, Heller et al. (2009) evaluated the safety and effectiveness of CADR with the BRYAN® cervical disc compared with spinal fusion. Two hundred and forty-two individuals received the BRYAN® cervical disc and 221 individuals underwent one-level ACDF (control group). Study participants completed clinical and radiographic follow-up for up to 24 months after surgery. NDI was statistically significantly better in the CADR group compared with the ACDF group (p = 0.025). There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups with regard to revision surgery subsequent to the index procedure. Individuals who received the CADR returned to work nearly 2 weeks earlier than individuals undergoing fusion (p = 0.015). The authors concluded that CADR is a viable alternative to ACDF in individuals with persistent symptomatic, single-level cervical DDD. The study is limited in its short-term follow-up period and lack of blinding.

In a prospective randomized controlled trial, Murrey et al. (2009) compared the safety and effectiveness of ProDisc®-C with ACDF for the treatment of DDD at one level between C3 and C7. A noninferiority design with a 1:1 randomization of 269 individuals was used (106 ACDF; 103 ProDisc®-C). Outcome measurements included visual analog scale (VAS) pain and intensity scores, NDI, and the number of adverse events. Individuals were followed for up to 24 months, with similar demographics between the two groups. The authors noted that both the ACDF and CADR groups had statistically significantly better NDI and VAS scores (p < 0.0001). However, there was no statistically significant difference between the two treatment groups. At 24 months postoperatively, CADR individuals achieved a more than or equal to 4 degrees of motion or maintained motion relative to preoperative baseline measurements. The authors concluded that ProDisc®-C was a safe and effective treatment option for individuals with disabling cervical radiculopathy due to DDD. The study is limited in its short-term follow-up period and lack of blinding.

In a non-comparative, prospective study, Beaurain et al. (2009) evaluated the safety and effectiveness of the Mobi-C® device in 76 individuals with DDD at one or more levels. CADR was performed after radiological confirmation (e.g. CT, MRI) and failure of conservative treatment. Individuals older than 65 years of age or with osteoporosis were excluded. About 86.5% of study participants had no previous cervical surgery and 12.2% had previous fusion. Approximately 88% of study participants were operated with Mobi-C® at one level, while 12% were operated at two levels. Outcome measurements included NDI and VAS pain scores, in addition to ROM measurements pre- and post-operatively. Complications and re-operation rates were also assessed. The authors reported on intermediate 2-year follow-up results and analyzed occurrences of HO. Ultimately, only 58 individuals were evaluated at 2-year follow-up (i.e., 24% loss to follow-up). Of these study participants, 72% (n=42) met the successful outcome definition of pre-op NDI superior or equal to 30%, with a decrease of 15 points or more at 2-year follow-up. Mean NDI and VAS scores for both the arm and neck were statistically significantly reduced and ROM was preserved at index levels, with 85.5% of the segments remaining mobile at 2-year follow-up. In 72% of the study participants, HO was responsible for fusion at 6 of the 76 total levels. The authors concluded that the intermediate results of CADR were encouraging and that further studies were needed to determine the preservation of adjacent levels. The study is limited in its relatively short-term follow-up period, high loss to follow-up, heterogeneous study population, and lack of a comparative control group.

In a prospective randomized controlled trial, Garrido et al. (2010) evaluated the safety and effectiveness of BRYAN® cervical disc in CADR when compared with ACDF. Forty-seven individuals with single-level DDD were followed for 48 months. Outcome measurements included NDI, VAS neck and arm scores, the number of adverse events, and the number of revision surgeries. At 48 months, NDI improvement was higher for CADR when compared with ACDF. VAS neck and arm pain scores were higher for ACDF when compared with CADR. There were six revision surgeries in the ACDF group and only one revision surgery in the BRYAN® cervical disc group. Of the six revision surgeries for the ACDF group, three were for adjacent level DDD and one was for remote level DDD. The remaining two surgeries were performed on the same individual for pseudarthrosis (i.e., unresolved fracture). In the CADR group, the revision surgery was for adjacent level DDD. The authors concluded that at 48 months, CADR continued to compare favorably to ACDF and resulted in no degradation of functional outcomes. The study is limited in its small sample size and short-term follow-up period.

In a randomized controlled trial, Delamarter et al. (2010) reported on the 4-year follow-up results of the individuals enrolled in the FDA’s investigational device exemption (IDE) trial for the ProDisc®-C. The authors noted that ACDF may result in a higher risk for revision surgery. However, both CADR and ACDF groups show good clinical results at 4-year follow-up. Furthermore, they noted that the study is limited by the lower individual accountability at 48 months compared with at 24 months. They indicated that follow-up was ongoing. Therefore, the reported results should be considered preliminary, and no conclusions can be drawn until the entire study population has been evaluated. Large, long-term, randomized controlled trials are needed to demonstrate the long-term efficacy and safety of this device.

In a randomized, non-blinded, noninferiority trial with a noninferiority margin of 10%, the Prestige® ST cervical disc was compared to anterior cervical fusion (with allograft bone and plate stabilization). There were some noted concerns with the clinical trial, including the fact that the trial was non-blinded, which may have introduced bias because both the investigators and subjects knew which procedure was performed. At the time of the post-market approval (PMA) application, follow-up results were available on only half of the study participants, and only 75% of the 2-year follow-up results were reported in the published study. The FDA required a 7-year post-approval study (PAS) to evaluate the device’s long-term safety and effectiveness. In addition, a 5-year enhanced surveillance study was required to fully characterize the adverse events associated with the cervical disc device.

In a prospective, non-blinded, randomized controlled trial, Burkus et al. (2010) evaluated the long-term clinical outcomes in individuals undergoing anterior cervical surgery with the Prestige® device. Five hundred and forty-one individuals with cervical DDD were randomly assigned to CADR or spinal fusion (control group). Outcome measurements included Neck Disability Index (NDI) scores, health surveys, and neck and arm pain scores. Study participants were followed for up to 60 months. Of the 541 initial individuals , 271 (144 CADR and 127 spinal fusion) completed follow-up at 5 years. The overall rates of maintenance or improvement in neurological status in the CADR group were 91.6% 92.8%, and 95.0% at 24, 36, and 60 months, respectively, compared with 83.6%, 83.2%, and 88.9% in the control group (p = 0.006, 0.004, and 0.051). While rates of maintenance or improvement in the CADR group were not statistically significantly different at 60 months, the authors noted that rates for revision surgery at adjacent levels trended lower in the CADR group (8 individuals with 11 surgeries) compared with those in the spinal fusion group (13 individuals with 16 surgeries). These differences were not statistically different (p = 0.376). Regardless, the authors concluded that the Prestige® disc maintained improved clinical outcomes and segmental motion at 5-year follow-up. The study is limited in its high loss to follow-up, mid-term follow-up period, and lack of blinding. For the purposes of an implantable device, a 5-year follow-up is insufficient to assess durability, the biologic effects of wear, and the response of the prosthesis to its environment, particularly in the relatively young population in which this device is being used.

In a prospective comparative study, Peng et al. (2011) evaluated the safety and effectiveness of the Prestige® disc compared with ACDF. Twenty-one females and 19 males with a mean age of 43.9 years were followed for a mean of 2.9 years. Of these individuals, 62.5% had one-level replacement, 52.5% had myelopathy, and 47.5% had radiculopathy. Outcome measurements included NDI, cervical ROM, and radiography. The authors noted significant improvement in the NDI from a mean of 42.2 preoperatively to 16.4 at 6 months and 15.2 at 2 years (p < 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in clinical outcomes between CADR and ACDF. The authors concluded that CADR resulted in improved clinical outcomes at 2-year follow-up and can restore segmental lordosis (i.e., inward curvature of the spinal column) and preserve segmental ROM up to 2 years postoperatively. The study is limited in its lack of randomization, small sample size, short-term follow-up period, and heterogeneous study population.

In a prospective study, Huppert et al. (2011) evaluated the safety and effectiveness of the Mobi-C® device at one-level compared with multi-level CADR. A total of 231 individuals with cervical DDD were evaluated at 2-year follow-up, with 175 undergoing one-level surgery and 56 at 2-levels or more. Outcome measurements included NDI, VAS pain scores, ROM, and participant satisfaction. Mean NDI and VAS scores for both groups were improved, though there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups. In the multi-level group, analgesic use was significantly higher and the occurrence of HO was significantly lower. There was no significant difference in participant satisfaction. Approximately 11% of individuals in the one-level group and 20% of individuals in the multi-level group required re-operation or had at least 1 complication. While the authors concluded that there was no statistically significant difference between one-level and multi-level CADR, they acknowledged that further studies were necessary to understand the impact of multi-level CADR, especially on adjacent segments. The study is limited in its relatively short-term follow-up period, high loss to follow-up, heterogeneous study population, and lack of comparisons with gold standard treatments.

In a retrospective study, Ding et al. (2012) evaluated the intermediate clinical and radiographic outcomes of CADR with BRYAN® cervical disc. Thirty-four individuals representing 38 discs underwent CADR and study participants were followed for an average of 49.4 months (32 to 69). Clinical and radiographic outcomes, adjacent segment degeneration, complications, and reoperations were determined. NDI and neck and arm VAS pain scores were all statistically significantly improved postoperatively (p < 0.05), but there were no statistically significant differences between the different follow-up time points. Approximately 23% of adjacent levels displayed mild degeneration at last follow-up. No revision surgeries were performed. The authors concluded that the BRYAN® cervical disc resulted in successful clinical outcomes; however, adjacent segment degeneration was observed. The study is limited in its retrospective study design, small sample size, and lack of a comparative group.

In a prospective randomized controlled trial, Zhang et al. (2012) evaluated the safety and effectiveness of the BRYAN® cervical disc during CADR with conventional ACDF (control group). A total of 120 individuals were randomized to CADR (n=60) or ACDF (n=60) and were followed for 24 months. Both groups had similar demographics including ROM, NDI, and VAS pain scores for the neck and arm. The CADR group had a statistically significantly longer operation time than the ACDF group (p < 0.001). ROM was maintained in the CADR group, but was reduced in the ACDF group. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups with respect to NDI or VAS pain scores. One individual in the CADR group and four individuals in the ACDF group required revision surgery. The authors concluded that CADR yielded good clinical results while preserving ROM at the index level. The study is limited in its small sample size, short-term follow-up period, and lack of blinding.

In a prospective study, Wu et al. (2012) evaluated the safety and effectiveness of one-level CADR compared with two-level CADR in 87 consecutive individuals. Ultimately, data from 70 individuals, representing 98 levels, were obtained. There were 42 individuals in the one-level group and 28 individuals in the two-level group. Outcome measurements included NDI and VAS pain scores and study participants were followed for a mean of 46 months. While both groups had statistically significant improvements in NDI and VAS, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups. HO was identified significantly more frequently in the two-level group than the one-level group (75% vs. 40.5%; p = 0.009). The authors concluded that clinical outcomes of both one-level and two-level CADR were similar at 46-month follow-up. However, there was a statistically significantly higher rate of HO in individuals undergoing two-level CADR. The study is limited in its non-randomized design, relatively short-term follow-up period, and lack of a comparative control group.

In a prospective randomized controlled trial, Delamarter and Zigler (2012) reported on the rates of secondary surgical intervention at both the index and adjacent levels for individuals treated with CADR or ACDF. Two hundred and nine individuals were randomized (103 CADR, 106 ACDF) and followed for 5 years. A secondary surgical intervention was defined as a reoperation. Of the study participants that were ultimately involved in the study, 5-year follow up rates were 72.7% for the CADR group (n=72) and 63.5% for the ACDF group (n=61). At 5-year follow-up, individuals who received the ProDisc®-C device had a statistically significant probability of not having a reoperation at the index and adjacent levels when compared with individuals who underwent ACDF (97.1% vs. 85.5%, p = 0.0079). There were no reoperations performed for implant breakages or device failures for the CADR group. For the ACDF group, the most common reason for reoperation at the index level was pseudarthrosis. For both groups, the most common reason for reoperation at the adjacent level was recurrent neck and/or arm pain. For the CADR group, three individuals had reoperations. One individual had a secondary surgical intervention to address persistent pain and two individuals were treated at the index and adjacent levels for persistent pain and adjacent level degeneration (ALD). The device was removed in two individuals and the levels were converted to anterior fusions. One device was left intact with a posterior foraminotomy and fusion with stabilization. The authors concluded that CADR results in decreased reoperation rates when compared with ACDF. The study is limited in its mid-term follow-up period and its high loss to follow-up, which may hinder the internal validity of the study.

In a follow-up publication of the same study, Zigler et al. (2013) evaluated the safety and effectiveness of CADR using the ProDisc®-C device when compared with ACDF. Outcome measurements included NDI, VAS neck/arm pain scores, a SF-36 health survey (a standardized questionnaire used to measure an individual's overall subjective health status), neurological examination, device success, adverse event occurrence, and patient satisfaction. At 5-year follow-up, the authors reported that individuals in the CADR group had statistically significantly less neck pain intensity and frequency. Both groups scored high VAS satisfaction scores at 5 years. There were no reports of device failures or implant migration with the ProDisc®-C device and individuals in the CADR Group maintained ROM at their index level. The authors concluded that at 5 years, CADR was a safe and effective treatment for single-level symptomatic cervical disc disease with clinical outcomes that are comparable to ACDF. The study is limited in its mid-term follow-up period and its high loss to follow-up.

In a prospective, randomized FDA IDE pivotal study, Davis et al. (2013) evaluated the safety and effectiveness of CADR with the Mobi-C® device compared with ACDF for the treatment of 2-level symptomatic DDD. The primary outcome measurement was a composite measure of success at 2-year follow-up. A total of 330 individuals were enrolled and randomized (225 received CADR; 105 received ACDF). At 2-year follow-up, 3% of individuals were lost to follow-up. Individuals in both groups showed statistically significant improvements in NDI and VAS pain scores. However, individuals undergoing CADR experienced statistically significant greater improvements in success and NDI. The reoperation rate was significantly higher in the ACDF group at 11.4% compared with 3.1% in the CADR group. Grade IV HO was present in 11 individuals undergoing CADR (5%) at 2-year follow-up. HO was not present in individuals undergoing ACDF. The authors concluded that on average, CADR was safe and effective compared with ACDF for the treatment of two-level symptomatic DDD. The study is limited in its relatively short-term follow-up period and potential risk for publication bias.

In a prospective, single-site study of two randomized clinical trials, Hacker et al. (2013) evaluated the safety and effectiveness of CADR using the Prestige® and BRYAN® devices compared with ACDF for the treatment of 94 individuals with cervical DDD. Nineteen individuals received the Prestige® device and 28 received the BRYAN® device. Outcome measurements included radiographical and clinical data scheduled postoperatively at 12, 24, 48, and 60 months. Adverse events were assessed as well. Late complications were defined as 24 months following surgery, and very late complications were defined as 48 months following surgery. Adjacent segment disease occurred at a similar rate for individuals undergoing both fusion and CADR. Five individuals in the CADR group returned for evaluation of neck and arm symptoms 48 after surgery. Of these, 4 had peridevice vertebral body bone loss and 1 had posterior device migration and presented with myelopathy. Three required revision surgery. The authors concluded that despite the similarity between CADR and ACDF, they are not equivalent procedures in regard to very late complications. The authors also noted that appropriate follow-up intervals for CADR have not yet been defined by clinical trials. Therefore, they suggested that significantly longer follow-up periods may be warranted for individuals undergoing CADR than those undergoing fusion.

In a prospective randomized controlled trial, Coric et al. (2013) evaluated the safety and effectiveness of CADR with conventional ACDF (control group) in individuals with single-level cervical radiculopathy. The results of two separate prospective randomized IDE trials (BRYAN® and Kineflex®-C) were combined to evaluate outcomes. Primary clinical outcome measurements included NDI, VAS pain scores, and neurological examination. A total of 74 individuals were randomized to CADR (n=41) or ACDF (n=33). Eighty-six percent of individuals (n=63) completed a minimum of 4 years follow-up. Average follow-up was 6 years (48 to 108 months). In both the CADR and ACDF groups, mean NDI scores had a statistically significant improvement at 6 weeks after surgery and remained statistically significantly improved throughout the minimum of 48 months (p < 0.001). ROM in the CADR group was statistically significantly greater when compared with the ACDF group. There were a total of three reoperations at the index or adjacent levels in the CADR group and there was one reoperation in the ACDF group. There were no statistically significant differences in overall reoperation rates. The authors concluded that both CADR and ACDF groups showed excellent clinical outcomes that were maintained over 48 months. The study is limited in its small sample size, heterogeneous treatment arms (BRYAN® and Kineflex®-C), and mid-term follow-up period.

In a retrospective study, Malham et al. (2014) evaluated the safety and effectiveness of the ProDisc®-C device in one-level (n=19) or two-level CADR (n=5). Outcome measurements included NDI and VAS pain scores. Complication and revision surgery rates were also noted. Average follow-up was 7.7 years. All outcome measurements had a statistically significant improvement. There were no episodes of device migration or subsidence, with a mean ROM of 6.4 degrees. Heterotopic ossification (HO) was present in 37% of individuals (n=7). Radiographic adjacent segment disease below the device developed in 21% of individuals (n=4), with three occurring in individuals who underwent two-level CADR. The authors concluded that CADR was a safe and effective procedure, though there was radiographic evidence of HO and adjacent segment disease on follow-up. The study is limited in its small sample size, retrospective study design, heterogeneous population, and lack of a comparative control group.

In a retrospective study, Fay et al. (2014) evaluated the safety and effectiveness of CADR using the BRYAN® cervical disc (n=37) compared with ACDF (n=40) in two-level cervical DDD. Seventy-seven consecutive individuals underwent two-level surgery and were followed for approximately 40 months. Outcome measurements included NDI and VAS pain scores. There were statistically significant improvements in all both NDI and VAS pain scores, though there was no significant difference between the groups. The authors concluded that clinical outcomes of two-level ACDF and CADR were similar 40 months after surgery; however, further studies were needed to truly establish the safety and effectiveness of surgery to treat multi-level DDD. The study is limited in its retrospective study design, relatively small sample size, and short-term follow-up period.

In a prospective randomized controlled trial, Hisey et al. (2014) evaluated the Mobi-C® device in CADR when compared with ACDF for treating single-level cervical DDD. A total of 245 individuals were treated (164 CADR; 81 ACDF) and followed for 24 months. The primary outcome measurement was overall success based on improvement in NDI, no subsequent surgical interventions, and no adverse events. Secondary outcomes included VAS assessing neck and arm pain, patient satisfaction, radiographic ROM, and adjacent level degeneration. Overall success rates were 73.6% for CADR and 65.3% for ACDF, which confirmed noninferiority (p < 0.0025). Operative level ROM in the CADR was maintained throughout follow-up and radiographic evidence of inferior adjacent segment degeneration was significantly greater with ACDF at 12 and 24 months (p < 0.05). The authors concluded that CADR with the Mobi-C® was a safe and effective treatment for single-level disc degeneration, producing similar outcomes when compared with ACDF. The study is limited in its relatively short-term follow-up period and potential for publication bias.

In a comparative study, Hey et al. (2013) evaluated the role of hybrid CADR and ACDF in 7 consecutive individuals. Outcome measurements included VAS, NDI, and complication rates, and individuals were followed for 2 years. Data from the 7 individuals who underwent the hybrid procedure were compared with a retrospective random selection of another 7 ACDF and 7 CADR individuals. The authors noted that the individuals who underwent the hybrid procedure returned to work faster when compared to either ACDF or CADR (p = 0.035). There were no significant differences in ROM or functional scores. The authors concluded that the hybrid procedure was comparable to ACDF and CADR in terms of safety and feasibility, though additional large, randomized controlled trials were warranted. The study is limited in its extremely small sample size, retrospective matching, and short-term follow-up period.

In a retrospective study, Park et al. (2013) evaluated the intermediate-term clinical and radiologic outcomes of CADR with Mobi-C®. The study population consisted of 75 individuals with cervical disc herniation, representing 85 disc levels. Mean follow-up was 40 months, with a minimum follow-up of 24 months. Outcome measurements included neck and arm pain scores and NDI. Cervical overall lordosis, segmental lordosis, and ROM were evaluated up to 24 months postoperatively. The mean numeric rating scale scores and NDI scores decreased significantly over 24 months. This represented an overall success rate of 86.7% according to Odom criteria. Mean segmental lordosis and motion increased and then decreased until 24 months. HO occurred in 67 levels at 12 months postoperatively, increasing to 80 levels at 24 months. The authors concluded that intermediate follow-up of CADR using the Mobi-C® device showed good clinical outcomes, though there was a trend toward reduced alignment and motion at 24 months. The overall HO occurrence was 94.1% at 24 months. The study is limited in its retrospective study design, lack of a comparative control group, and its relatively mid-term follow-up period.

In a literature review, Alvin and Mroz (2014) evaluated the available literature on CADR with Mobi-C®, with a focus on two-level device. Fifteen studies evaluating CADR with Mobi-C® were included in the review, with study design, sample size, length of follow-up, statistical analysis, quality-of-life outcomes, conflicts of interest, and complications being recorded. Only one study was a level 1B randomized controlled trial, with all included studies concluded a non-inferiority of one-level CADR with Mobi-C® when compared with ACDF. Only one study analyzed outcomes of one-level vs. two-level CADR with Mobi-C® and another evaluating two-level CADR with Mobi-C® when compared with two-level ACDF. The authors noted that in comparison with other CADR devices, the Mobi-C® device was associated with higher rates of HO. They concluded that one-level CADR with Mobi-C® was non-inferior, but not superior, to one-level ACDF for individuals with cervical DDD. Additionally, they noted that insufficient evidence exists for two-level CADR with Mobi-C® when compared to two-level ACDF and that while Davis et al. (2013) did conclude superiority of two-level CADR with Mobi-C®, there were questions about publication bias. Specifically, they noted that the HO rate in the Davis et al. (2013) paper was 4.9% and different significant from every other study included in the review (range: 27.7 % - 94.1%) The authors indicated that there was a need for unbiased, well-designed prospective studies with well-defined outcomes. The study is limited in the heterogeneous nature of the included studies.

In a follow-up to the initial prospective, randomized FDA IDE pivotal study, Davis et al. (2015) evaluated the noninferiority of two-level CADR using Mobi-C® (n=225) when compared to 2-level ACDF (n=105) at 4-year follow-up. At 24 months, the follow-up rate was 98.2% for the CADR group and 94.3% for the ACDF group. At 48 months, the follow-up rate was 89% for CADR and 81.2% for ACDF. Outcome measurements included NDI scores, patient satisfaction, and overall success. Both groups demonstrated significant improvement in NDI score, VAS neck pain, and VAS arm pain from baseline, with Mobi-C® meeting the noninferiority margin. Subsequent testing for superiority showed that CADR individuals had significantly greater improvement than ACDF with respect to NDI. CADR also resulted in significantly greater improvement in VAS neck pain at 6 months postoperatively, but not at 12, 24, 36, or 48 months. Arm pain scores did not different between the groups. The CADR group had lower reoperation rates when compared with ACDF. At 48 months, adjacent level degeneration was observed in 41.5% of CADR individuals and 85.9% of ACDF individuals among those with available radiographs. Clinically relevant HO was observed in 25.6% of CADR individuals. Post-hoc analysis of the data from Davis et al. (2013) and Davis et al. (2015) were reported by Bae et al. (2015). Comparisons between single-level and two-level CADR with Mobi-C® revealed no significant difference on clinical outcomes (NDI, VAS, Short-Form 12), major complication rates, or subsequent surgery rates (3% for single-level and 4% for two-level). Clinically relevant HO was observed in 23.8% of individuals who underwent single-level CADR and 25.7% of individuals who underwent two-level CADR.

In a literature review, Skovrlj et al. (2015) evaluated the current available literature regarding reoperations following CADR. The authors noted that with increasing numbers of individuals undergoing CADR and longer available follow-up data, complications related to the devices and/or aging spine are growing. The published rates of reoperation (mean 1.0%; range 0% to 3.1%), revision (mean 0.2%; range 0% to 0.5%), and removal (mean 1.2%; range 0% to 1.9%) following CADR were low and comparable to the published rates following ACDF. The authors indicated that there was minimal literature and no guidelines with respect to the approaches and techniques in revision and for the removal of implants following CADR. Additionally, they called for longer-term follow-up studies to assess implant survivorship and its effect on revision and removal rates.



References


Ahn PG, Kim KN, Moon SW, et al. Changes in cervical range of motion and sagittal alignment in early and late phases after total disc replacement: radiographic follow-up exceeding 2 years. J Neurosurg Spine. 2009;11(6):688-95.

 

Alvin MD, Mroz TE. The Mobi-C cervical disc for one-level and two-level cervical disc replacement: a review of the literature. Med Devices (Auckl). 2014; 26(7):397-403.

 

Ament, JD, Yang Zhuo, Nunley P, et al. Cost-effectiveness of cervical total disc replacement vs fusion for the treatment of 2-level symptomatic degenerative disc disease. JAMA Surgery.  2014;149(12):1231-9.

 

Amit A, Dorward N. Bryan cervical disc prosthesis: 12-month clinical outcome. Br J Neurosurg. 2007;21(5):478-84.

 

Anakwenze OA, Auerbach JD, Milby AH, et al. Sagittal cervical alignment after cervical disc arthroplasty and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: results of a prospective, randomized, controlled trial. Spine2009;34(19):2001-7.

 

Anderson PA, Sasso RC, Riew KD. Comparison of adverse events between the Bryan artificial cervical disc and anterior cervical arthrodesis. Spine. 2008;33(12):1305-12

 

Anderson PA, Sasso RC, Riew KD. Update on cervical artificial disk replacement. Instr Course Lect. 2007;56:237-46.

 

Bae HW, Kim KD, Nunley PD, et al. Comparison of Clinical Outcomes of One and Two-level Total Disc Replacement: 4-year Results from a Prospective, Randomized, Controlled, Multicenter IDE Clinical Trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015 Jun 1;40(11):759-66.

 

Bartels R, Donk R, Verbeek A. No justification for cervical disk prostheses in clinical practice: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trial. Neurosurgery. 2010;66(6):1153-60.

 

Beaurain J, Bernard P, Dufour T, et al. Intermediate clinical and radiological results of cervical TDR (Mobi-C) with up to 2 years of follow-up. Eur Spine J. 2009;18(6):841-50.

 

Benzel EC. Cervical disc arthroplasty compared with allograft fusion. J Neurosurg Spine. 2007;6(3):197.

 

Blue Cross Blue Shield Association Technology Evaluation Center (TEC). Artificial intervertebral disc arthroplasty for treatment of degenerative disease of the cervical spine. TEC Assessment Vol 26, No. 5. November 2011. Available at:  https://bluewebportal.bcbs.com/global_assets/special_content/tec_assessments/VOL26/26_05.pdf. Accessed August 7, 2020

 

Blue Cross BlueShield Association (BCBSA) Technology Evaluation Center. Artificial intervertebral disc arthroplasty for treatment of degenerative disc disease of the cervical spine. TEC Assessment Vol 28, No. 13. January 2014. Available at: http://bluewebportal.bcbs.com/global_assets/special_content/tec_assessments/VOL28/28_13.pdf. Accessed August 7, 2020.

 

Boselie TF, Willems PC, van Mameren H et al. Arthroplasty versus fusion in single-level cervical degenerative disc disease: a cochrane review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976).2013; 38(17):E1096-107.

 

Botelho RV, et al. A systematic review of randomized trials on the effect of cervical disc arthroplasty on reducing adjacent-level degeneration. Neurosurg Focus. 2010; 28(6):E5.

 

Bryan VE Jr. Cervical motion segment replacement. Eur Spine J. 2002;11 Suppl 2:S92-7.

 

Buchowski JM, Anderson PA, Sekhon L, et al. Cervical disc arthroplasty compared with arthrodesis for the treatment of myelopathy. Surgical technique. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(Suppl 2):223-32.

 

Burkus JK, Haid RW, Traynelis VC, et al. Long-term clinical and radiographic outcomes of cervical disc replacement with the Prestige disc: results from a prospective randomized controlled clinical trial. J Neurosurg Spine. 2010;13(3):308-318.

 

Burkus JK, Traynelis VC, Haid RW, Jr., et al. Clinical and radiographic analysis of an artificial cervical disc: 7-year follow-up from the Prestige prospective randomized controlled clinical trial: Clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine. 2014;21(4):516-528.

 

California Technology Assessment Forum (CTAF). Artificial Disc Replacement for Degenerative Disc Disease of the Cervical Spine [technology assessment]. October 2009. Also available on the CTAF Web site at: http://icer-review.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/1073_file_cervicaldisc_final_W.pdf. Accessed August 7, 2020.

 

Cavanaugh DA, Nunley PD, Kerr EJ, 3rd et al. Delayed hyper-reactivity to metal ions after cervical disc arthroplasty: a case report and literature review. Spine. 2009;34(7):E262-5

 

Cheng L, Nie L, Zhang L, et al. Fusion versus Bryan Cervical Disc in two-level cervical disc disease: a prospective, randomised study. Int Orthop. 2009;33(5):1347-51.

 

Cheng L, Nie L, Li M, et al. Superiority of the Bryan(®) disc prosthesis for cervical myelopathy: a randomized study with 3-year followup. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469(12):3408-14.

 

Cherkin DC, Sherman KJ, Deyo RA, Shekelle PG. A review of the evidence for the effectiveness, safety, and cost of acupuncture, massage therapy, and spinal manipulation for back pain. Ann Intern Med. 2003;138(11):898-906.

 

Chung SB, Muradov JM, Lee SH, et al. Uncovertebral hypertrophy is a significant risk factor for the occurrence of heterotopic ossification after cervical disc replacement: survivorship analysis of Bryan disc for single-level cervical arthroplasty. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2012;154(6):1017-22.

 

Cinotti G, David T, Postacchini F. Results of disc prosthesis after a minimum follow-up period of 2 years. Spine. 1996;21(8):995-1000.

 

Coric D. ISASS policy statement - cervical artificial disc. Int J Spine Surg.2014 Dec 1;8.

 

Coric D, Albert T, Radcliff K. Five-year results of 2-level cervical total disc replacement compared with anterior discectomy and fusion: an independent review of a prospective, randomized, controlled multicenter investigational device exemption clinical trial. Neurosurgery.2015;62(Suppl 1):221.

 

Coric D, Cassis J, Carew JD, et al. Prospective study of cervical arthroplasty in 98 patients involved in 1 of 3 separate investigational device exemption studies from a single investigational site with a minimum 2-year follow-up. J Neurosurg Spine. 2010;13(6):715-21.

 

Coric D, Finger F, Boltes P. Prospective randomized controlled study of the Bryan Cervical Disc: Early clinical results from a single investigational site. J Neurosurg Spine. 2006;4(1):31-35.

 

Coric D, Kim PK, Clemente JD et al. Prospective randomized study of cervical arthroplasty and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with long-term follow-up: results in 74 patients from a single site. J Neurosurg Spine. 2013; 18(1):36-42.

 

Darden BV. ProDisc-C cervical disk arthroplasty. Semin Spine Surg. 2012;24:8-13.

 

Davis RJ, Kim KD, Hisey MS, et al. Cervical total disc replacement with the Mobi-C cervical artificial disc compared with anterior discectomy and fusion for treatment of 2-level symptomatic degenerative disc disease: a prospective, randomized, controlled multicenter clinical trial: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine. 2013;19(5):532-45.

 

Davis RJ, Nunley PD, Kim KD, et al. Two-level total disc replacement with Mobi-C cervical artificial disc versus anterior discectomy and fusion: a prospective, randomized, controlled multicenter clinical trial with 4-year follow-up results. J Neurosurg Spine. 2014:1-11

 

Delamarter RB, Murrey D, Janssen ME. Results at 24 months from the prospective, randomized multicenter investigational device exemption trial of ProDisc-C versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with 4-year follow-up and continued access patients. SAS J. 2010;4:122-28.

 

Delamarter RB, Zigler J. Five-year reoperation rates, cervical total disc replacement versus fusion, results of a prospective randomized clinical trial. Spine.2013;38(9):711-7.

 

Deyo RA, Nachemson A, Mirza SK. Spinal-fusion surgery – the case for restraint. N Engl J Med. 2004;350(7):722-726.

 

Ding C, Hong Y, Liu H, et al. Intermediate clinical outcome of bryan cervical disc replacement for degenerative disk disease and its effect on adjacent segment disks. Orthopedics. 2012;35(6):e909-16.

 

Duggal N, Bertagnoli R, Rabin D, et al. ProDisc-C: an in vivo kinematic study. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2011;24(5):334-9.

 

Duggal N, Pickett GE, Mitsis DK, et al. Early clinical and biomechanical results following cervical arthroplasty. Neurosurg Focus. 2004;17(3):E9.

 

ECRI Institute. Artificial intervertebral disc replacement for symptomatic cervical disc disease. Emerging Technology Evidence Report. OR Manager. 2009;25(9):4.

 

ECRI Institute. Artificial intervertebral disc replacement for cervical disc disease. Health Technology Assessment. October 2012.

 

Fay LY, Huang WC, Tsai TY, et al. Differences between arthroplasty and anterior cervical fusion in two-level cervical degenerative disc disease. Eur Spine J. 2014;23(3):627-34.

 

Fong SY, Duplessis SJ, Casha S, et al. Design limitations of Bryan disc arthroplasty. Spine J. 2006; 6(3):233-41.


Fraser JF, Hartl R. Anterior approaches to fusion of the cervical spine: a metaanalysis of fusion rates. J Neurosurg Spine. 2007;6(4):298-303.


Garrido BJ, Taha TA, Sasso RC. Clinical Outcomes of Bryan Cervical Disc Arthroplasty A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled, Single Site Trial With 48-Month Follow-up. J Spinal Disord Tech.2010;23(6):367-71.

 

Garrido BJ, Wilhite J, Nakano M, et al. Adjacent-level cervical ossification after Bryan cervical disc arthroplasty compared with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 20116;93(13):1185-9.


Goffin J. Complications of cervical disc arthroplasty. Semin Spine Surg. 2006;18(2):87-98.

 

Goffin J, Casey A, Kehr P, et al. Preliminary clinical experience with the Bryan Cervical Disc Prosthesis. Neurosurgery. 2002;51(3):840-5.

 

Goffin J, van Loon J, Van Calenbergh F, et al. A clinical analysis of 4- and 6-year follow-up results after cervical disc replacement surgery using the Bryan Cervical Disc Prosthesis. J Neurosurg Spine. 2010;12(3):261-9.

 

Griffith SL, Shelokov AP, Buttner-Janz K, et al. A multicenter retrospective study of the clinical results of the LINK SB Charite intervertebral prosthesis. The initial European experience. Spine. 1994;19(16):1842-1849.

 

Hacker FM, Babcock RM, Hacker RJ. Very late complications of cervical arthroplasty: results of 2 controlled randomized prospective studies from a single investigator site. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013;38(26):2223-2226.

 

Hacker RJ. Cervical disc arthroplasty: a controlled randomized prospective study with intermediate follow-up results. J Neurosurg Spine. 2004;3:424-8.

 

Heller JG, Sasso RC, Papadopoulos SM, et al. Comparison of BRYAN® cervical disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical decompression and fusion: clinical and radiographic results of a randomized, controlled, clinical trial. Spine. 2009;34(2):101-7.

 

Heidecke V, Burkert W, Brucke M, et al. Intervertebral disc replacement for cervical degenerative disease—clinical results and functional outcome at two years in patients implanted with the Bryan cervical disc prosthesis. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2008;150(5):453-459.

 

Hey HW, Hong CC, Long AS, et al. Is hybrid surgery of the cervical spine a good balance between fusion and arthroplasty? Pilot results from a single surgeon series. Eur Spine J. 2013;22(1):116-22.

 

Hisey MS, Bae HW, Davis R, et al. Multi-center, prospective, randomized, controlled investigational device exemption clinical trial comparing Mobi-C cervical artificial disc to anterior discectomy and fusion in the treatment of symptomatic degenerative disc disease in the cervical spine. Int J Spine Surg.2014 Dec 1;8.

 

Hisey MS, Bae HW, Davis R, et al. Prospective, Randomized Comparison of Cervical Total Disk Replacement Versus Anterior Cervical Fusion: Results at 48 Months Follow-up. J Disord Tech. 2015;28(4):E237-43.


Hochschuler SH, Ohnmeiss DD, Guyer RD, Blumenthal SL. Artificial disc: Preliminary results of a prospective study in the United States. Eur Spine J. 2002;11 Suppl 2:S106-S110.


Jawahar A, Cavanaugh DA, Kerr EJ, 3rd et al. Total disc arthroplasty does not affect the incidence of adjacent segment degeneration in cervical spine: results of 93 patients in three prospective randomized clinical trials. Spine J. 2010;10(12):1043-8.

 

Jin YJ, Park SB, Kim MJ, et al. An analysis of heterotopic ossification in cervical disc arthroplasty: a novel morphologic classification of an ossified mass. Spine J. 2013 Apr;13(4):408-20.

 

Johnson JP, Lauryssen C, Cambron HO, et al. Sagittal alignment and the Bryan cervical artificial disc. Neurosurg Focus. 2004;17(6):E14.


Kang L, Lin D, Ding Z, et al. Artificial disk replacement combined with midlevel ACDF versus multilevel fusion for cervical disk disease involving 3 levels. Orthopedics.2013;36(1):e88-94.

 

Kang J, Shi C, Gu Y, et al. Factors that may affect outcome in cervical artificial disc replacement: a systematic review. Eur Spine J. 2015 Sep;24(9):2023-32.

 

Katsimihas M, Bailey CS, Issa K, et al. Prospective clinical and radiographic results of CHARITÉ III artificial total disc arthroplasty at 2- to 7-year follow-up: a Canadian experience. Can J Surg. 2010;53(6):408-4145.

 

Kelly MP, Mok JM, Frisch RF, et al. Adjacent segment motion after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion versus Prodisc-c cervical total disk arthroplasty: analysis from a randomized, controlled trial. Spine. 20111;36(15):1171-9.


Kim HK, Kim MH, Cho DS, et al. Surgical outcome of cervical arthroplasty using bryan(r). J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2009;46(6):532-7.

 

Kim SW, Limson MA, Kim SB, et al. Comparison of radiographic changes after ACDF versus Bryan disc arthroplasty in single and bi-level cases. Eur Spine J. 2009;18(2):218-31.

 

Kim SW, Shin JH, Arbatin JJ, et al. Effects of a cervical disc prosthesis on maintaining sagittal alignment of the functional spinal unit and overall sagittal balance of the cervical spine. Eur Spine J. 2008;17(1):20-9.

 

Kowalczyk I, Lazaro BC, Fink M, et al. Analysis of in vivo kinematics of 3 different cervical devices: Bryan disc, ProDisc-C, and Prestige LP disc. J Neurosurg Spine. 2011;15(6):630-5.

 

Kurtz SM, MacDonald D, Ianuzzi A, et al. The natural history of polyethylene oxidation in total disc replacement. Spine. 2009;34(22):2369-77.

 

Lafuente J, Casey AT, Petzold A, et al. The Bryan cervical disc prosthesis as an alternative to arthrodesis in the treatment of cervical spondylosis: 46 consecutive cases. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005;87(4):508-12.

 

Latka D, Kozlowska K, Miekisiak G et al. Safety and efficacy of cervical disc arthroplasty in preventing the adjacent segment disease: a meta-analysis of mid- to long-term outcomes in prospective, randomized, controlled multicenter studies. Ther Clin Risk Manag. 2019;15:531-539.

 

Lazaro BC, Yucesoy K, Yuksel KZ, et al. Effect of arthroplasty design on cervical spine kinematics: analysis of the Bryan Disc, ProDisc-C, and Synergy Disc. Neurosurg Focus. 2010; 28(6):E6.


Lee SB, Cho KS, Kim JY, et al. Hybrid surgery of multilevel cervical degenerative disc disease: review of literature and clinical results. J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2012;52(5):452-8.

 

Lemaire JP, Skalli W, Lavaste F, et al. Intervertebral disc prosthesis. Results and prospects for the year 2000. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1997;337:64-76.

 

Leung C, Casey AT, Goffin J, et al. Clinical significance of heterotopic ossification in cervical disc replacement: a prospective multicenter clinical trial. Neurosurgery. 200; 57(4):759-63.


Lind B, Zoega B, Anderson PA. A radiostereometric analysis of the Bryan Cervical Disc prosthesis. Spine. 2007;32(8):885-90.


MacDowall A, Skeppholm M, Lindhagen L et al. Artificial disc replacement versus fusion in patients with cervical degenerative disc disease with radiculopathy: 5-year outcomes from the National Swedish Spine Register. J Neurosurg Spine. 2018 Nov;30(2).


Malham GM, Parker RM, Ellis NJ, et al. Cervical artificial disc replacement with ProDisc-C: Clinical and radiographic outcomes with long-term follow-up. J Clin Neurosci. 2014;21(6):949-53.


McAfee PC. Cervical and lumbar disc replacement – the ease of revision.  U.S. Orthopedics Review 2006.Available at: http://www.towsonortho.com/pdf/McAfee-edit.pdf. Accessed August 7, 2020.

 

McAfee PC, Cappuccino A, Cunningham BW, et al. Lower incidence of dysphagia with cervical arthroplasty compared with ACDF in a prospective randomized clinical trial. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2010;23(1):1-8.

 

McAfee PC, Reah C, Gilder K, et al. A meta-analysis of comparative outcomes following cervical arthroplasty or anterior cervical fusion: results from 4 prospective multicenter randomized clinical trials and up to 1226 patients. Spine. 2012;37(11):943-52.


Mummaneni PV, Burkus JK, Haid RW, et al. Clinical and radiographic analysis of cervical disc arthroplasty compared with allograft fusion: a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Neurosurg Spine. 2007;6(3):198-209.

 

Murrey D, Janssen M, Delamarter R, et al. Results of the prospective, randomized, controlled multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study of the ProDisc-C total disc replacement versus anterior discectomy and fusion for the treatment of 1-level symptomatic cervical disc disease. Spine J. 2009;9(4):275-86.

 

Nabhan A, Ahlhelm F, Pitzen T, et al. Disc replacement using Pro-Disc C versus fusion: a prospective randomised and controlled radiographic and clinical study. Eur Spine J. 2007;16(3):423-430.

 

National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). Prosthetic intervertebral disc replacement in the cervical spine. [NICE Web site].  Available at: http://guidance.nice.org.uk/IPG341/Guidance/pdf/English. Accessed August 7, 2020.

 

North American Spine Society. NASS coverage policy recommendations: Cervical artificial disc replacement. 2015; https://www.spine.org/Portals/0/Assets/Downloads/ResearchClinicalCare/Guidelines/CervicalRadiculopathy.pdf.  Accessed August 7, 2020.

 

Nunley PD, Jawahar A, Kerr EJ, 3rd, et al. Factors affecting the incidence of symptomatic adjacent level disease in cervical spine after total disc arthroplasty: 2-4 years follow-up of 3 prospective randomized trials. Spine. 2012;37(6):445-51.

 

Oh CH, Kim dY, Ji GY, Cervical arthroplasty for moderate to severe disc degeneration: clinical and radiological assessments after a minimum follow-up of 18 months--Pfirrmann grade and cervical arthroplasty. Yonsei Med J. 2014;55(4):1072-9.

 

Park JH, Rhim SC, Roh SW. Mid-term follow-up of clinical and radiologic outcomes in cervical total disk replacement (Mobi-C): incidence of heterotopic ossification and risk factors. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2013;26(3):141-5.

 

Park JJ, Quirno M, Cunningham MR, et al. Analysis of segmental cervical spine vertebral motion after prodisc-C cervical disc replacement. Spine. 2010;35(8):E285-9.

 

Parkinson JF, Sekhon LH. Cervical arthroplasty complicated by delayed spontaneous fusion. Case report. J Neurosurg Spine. 2005;2(3):377-80.

 

Peng CW, Quirno M, Bendo JA, et al. Effect of intervertebral disc height on postoperative motion and clinical outcomes after Prodisc-C cervical disc replacement. Spine J. 2009;9(7):551-5.

 

Peng CW, Yue WM, Basit A, et al. Intermediate results of the Prestige LP cervical disc replacement: clinical and radiological analysis with minimum two-year follow-up. Spine. 2011;36(2):E105-11.

 

Peng-Fei S, Yu-Hua J. Cervical disc prosthesis replacement and interbody fusion - a comparative study. International Orthopaedics. 2008;32:103-6.

 

Phillips FM, Garfin SR. Cervical disc replacement. Spine. 2005;30(17 suppl):S27-33.

 

Phillips FM, Lee JY, Geisler FH et al. A Prospective, randomized, controlled clinical investigation comparing PCM Cervical disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: 2-year results from the US FDA IDE Clinical Trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976).2013; 38(15):E907-18.

 

Pickett GE, Duggal N. Artificial disc insertion following anterior cervical discectomy. Can J Neurol Sci. 2003;30(3):278-83.

 

Pickett GE, Mitsis DK, Sekhon LH, et al. Effects of a cervical disc prosthesis on segmental and cervical spine alignment.  Neurosurg Focus. 2004;17(3):E5.

 

Pickett GE, Rouleau JP, Duggal N. Kinematic analysis of the cervical spine following implantation of an artificial cervical disc. Spine. 2005; 30(17):1949-54.

 

Pickett GE, Sekhon LH, Sears WR, et al. Complications with cervical arthroplasty. J Neurosurg Spine. 2006; 4(2):98-105.

 

Pope MH, DeVocht JW. The clinical relevance of biomechanics. Neurol Clin.1999;17(1):17-41.

 

Powell JW, Sasso RC, Metcalf NH, et al. Quality of spinal motion with cervical disk arthroplasty: computer-aided radiographic analysis. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2010;23(2):89-95.

 

Punt IM, Cleutjens JP, de Bruin T, et al. Periprosthetic tissue reactions observed at revision of total intervertebral disc arthroplasty. Biomaterials. 2009;30(11):2079-84.


Putzier M, Funk JF, Schneider SV, et al. Charite total disc replacement--clinical and radiographical results after an average follow-up of 17 years. Eur Spine J. 2006;15(2):183-95.

 

Quan GM, Vital JM, Hansen S, et al. Eight-year clinical and radiological follow-up of the Bryan cervical disc arthroplasty. Spine. 2011;36(8):639-46.

 

Rabin D, Bertagnoli R, Wharton N, et al. Sagittal balance influences range of motion: an in vivo study with the ProDisc-C. Spine J. 2009;9(2):128-33.

 

Rabin D, Pickett GE, Bisnaire L, et al. The kinematics of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion versus artificial cervical disc: a pilot study. Neurosurgery. 2007;61(3 Suppl):100-4.

 

Radcliff K, Coric D, Albert T. Five-year clinical results of cervical total disc replacement compared with anterior discectomy and fusion for treatment of 2-level symptomatic degenerative disc disease: a prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter investigational device exemption clinical trial. J Neurosurg Spine. Mar 25 2016:1-12. PMID 27015130.


Ren X, Wang W, Chu T, et al. The intermediate clinical outcome and its limitations of Bryan cervical arthroplasty for treatment of cervical disc herniation. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2011;24(4):221-9.

 

Riew KD, Buchowski JM, Sasso R, et al. Cervical disc arthroplasty compared with arthrodesis for the treatment of myelopathy. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90(11):2354-64.

 

Riina J, Patel A, Dietz JW, et al. Comparison of single-level cervical fusion and a metal-on-metal cervical disc replacement device. Am J Orthop. 2008;37(4):E71-E77.

 

Robertson JT, Papadopoulos SM, Traynelis VC. Assessment of adjacent-segment disease in patients treated with cervical fusion or arthroplasty: a prospective 2-year study. J Neurosurg Spine. 2005;3(6):417-23.

 

Rohl K, Rohrich F. Artificial disc versus spinal fusion in the treatment of cervical spine degenerations in tetraplegics: a comparison of clinical results. Spinal Cord. 2009;47(9):705-8.

 

Roland M, Fairbank J. The Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire and the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire. Spine. 2000;25(24):3115-3124.

 

Röllinghof M, Zarghooni K, Hackenberg L, et al. Quality of life and radiological outcome after cervical cage fusion and cervical disc arthroplasty. Acta Orthop Belg. 2012;78(3):369-75.


Ryu KS, Park CK, Jun SC, et al. Radiological changes of the operated and adjacent segments following cervical arthroplasty after a minimum 24-month follow-up: comparison between the Bryan and Prodisc-C devices. J Neurosurg Spine. 2010;13(3):299-307.

 

Samartzis D, Shen FH, Goldberg EJ, et al. Is autograft the gold standard in achieving radiographic fusion on one-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with rigid anterior plate fixation? Spine. 2005;30(15):1756-1761.

 

Sasso RC, Anderson PA, Riew KD, et al. Results of cervical arthroplasty compared with anterior discectomy and fusion: four-year clinical outcomes in a prospective, randomized controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011a;93(18):1684-92.

 

Sasso RC, Best NM. Cervical kinematics after fusion and BRYAN® disc arthroplasty. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2008;21(1):19-22.

 

Sasso RC, Best NM, Metcalf NH, et al. Motion analysis of BRYAN ® cervical disc arthroplasty versus anterior discectomy and fusion: results from a prospective, randomized, multicenter, clinical trial. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2008;21(6):393-9.


Sasso RC, Metcalf NH, Hipp JA, et al. Sagittal alignment after Bryan cervical arthroplasty. Spine. 2011b;36(13):991-6.

 

Sasso RC, Smucker JD, Hacker RJ, et al. Artificial disc versus fusion: a prospective, randomized study with 2-year follow-up on 99 patients. Spine. 2007;32(26):2933-40.

 

Sasso RC, Smucker JD, Hacker RJ, et al. Clinical outcomes of BRYAN cervical disc arthroplasty: a prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter trial with 24-month follow-up. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2007;20(7):481-91.


Sekhon LH. Cervical arthroplasty in the management of spondylotic myelopathy: 18-month results. Neurosurg Focus. 2004;17(3):E8.

 

Sekhon LH. Cervical arthroplasty in the management of spondylotic myelopathy.  J Spinal Disord Tech. 2003;16(4):307-13.

 

Sekhon LH, Sear W, Duggal N. Cervical arthroplasty after previous surgery: results of treating 24 discs in 15 patients. J Neurosurg Spine. 2005; 3(5):335-41.


Shim CS, Lee SH, Park HJ, et al. Early clinical and radiologic outcomes of cervical arthroplasty with Bryan Cervical Disc prosthesis. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2006;19(7):465-70.

 

Shim CS, Lee S-H, Shin H-D, et al. CHARITEì Versus ProDisc: A Comparative Study of a Minimum 3-Year Follow-up. Spine. 2007;32(9):1012-8.


Skold C, Tropp H, Berg S. Five-year follow-up of total disc replacement compared to fusion: a randomized controlled trial. Eur Spine J. 2013;22(10): 2288-95.

 

Skovrlj B, Lee DH, Caridi JM, et al. Reoperations following cervical disc replacement. Asian Spine J. 2015;9(3):471-82.

 

Smith JS, Helgeson MD, Albert TJ. The argument for anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion over total disk replacement. Semin Spine Surg. 2012;24:2-7.

 

Steinmetz MP, Patel R, Traynelis V, et al. Cervical disc arthroplasty compared with fusion in a workers' compensation population. Neurosurgery. 2008;63(4):741-7.

 

Staub LP, Ryser C, Roder C, et al. Total disc arthroplasty versus anterior cervical interbody fusion: use of the Spine Tango registry to supplement the evidence from randomized control trials. Spine J. Feb 2016;16(2):136- 145.

 

Suchomel P, Barsa P, Buchvald P, et al. Autologous versus allogeneic bone grafts in instrumented anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a prospective study with respect to bone union pattern. Eur Spine J. 2004;13(6):510-5.

 

Swenson R. Differential diagnosis: A reasonable clinical approach. Neurol Clin. 1999;17(1):43-63.

 

Tsermoulas G, Bhattathiri PS. Anterior migration of prosthesis following cervical arthroplasty. Br J Neurosurg.2013; 27(1):132-3.

 

Tu TH, Wu JC, Huang WC, et al. Heterotopic ossification after cervical total disc replacement: determination by CT and effects on clinical outcomes. J Neurosurg Spine. 2011;14(4):457-65.

 

US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Center for Devices and Radiological Health. Mobi-C® Cervical Disc Prosthesis (two-level) – P110009. Approval order, summary of safety and effectiveness, labeling, and other consumer information. [FDA Web site]. 08/23/2013. Available at: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfpma/pma.cfm?id=P110009. Accessed August 7, 2020.

 

US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Center for Devices and Radiological Health. Mobi-C®Cervical Disc Prosthesis – P110002. Approval order, summary of safety and effectiveness, labeling, and other consumer information. [FDA Web site]. 08/07/2013. Available at: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfpma/pma.cfm?id=P110002. Accessed August 7, 2020.

 

US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Center for Devices and Radiological Health. Prestige® Cervical Disc System - P060018. Approval order, summary, labeling, and other consumer information. [FDA Web site]. 07/20/07. Available at: http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf6/P060018a.pdf.  Accessed August 7, 2020.

 

US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Center for Devices and Radiological Health. Prestige ® Cervical Disc System. [Report of the United States clinical study results (G010188). [FDA Web site]. May 2006. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/06/briefing/2006-4243b1_02.pdf. Accessed August 7, 2020.

 

US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Center for Devices and Radiological Health. ProDisc™-C Total Disc Replacement - P070001. Premarket approval order, summary, labeling, and other consumer information. [FDA Web site]. 12/17/07. Available at: http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfpma/pma.cfm?start_search=1&sortcolumn=do_desc&PAGENUM=500&pmanumber=P070001. Accessed August 7, 2020.

 

US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Center for Devices and Radiological Health. Premarket approval letter. BRYAN® Cervical Disc [FDA Web site]. 05/12/09. Available at: http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf6/P060023a.pdf. Accessed August 7, 2020.

​ 

US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Summary of Safety and Effectiveness Data. BRYAN® Cervical Disc. [FDA Web site]. 05/12/09. Available at: http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf6/P060023b.pdf. Accessed August 7, 2020.

 

US Food and Drug Administration. Summary of Safety and Effectiveness: Prestige LP Cervical Disc. PMA Number P090029/S003. 2016; http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf9/p090029s003b.pdf. Accessed August 7, 2020.

 

Vaccaro A, Beutler W, Peppelman W, et al. Clinical outcomes with selectively constrained SECURE-C cervical disc arthroplasty: two-year results from a prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter investigational device exemption study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). Dec 15 2013.

 

van Loon J, Goffin J. Unanticipated outcomes after cervical disk arthroplasty. Semin Spine Surg. 2012;24:20-24.

 

Vernon H, Mior S. The Neck Disability Index: a study of reliability and validity. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1991;14(7):409-415.

 

Walraevens J, Demaerel P, Suetens P, et al. Longitudinal prospective long-term radiographic follow-up after treatment of single-level cervical disk disease with the Bryan Cervical Disc. Neurosurgery. 2010;67(3):679-87.

 

Wang Q, Cheng H, Mao Z, et al. Clinical and radiographic results after treatment of cervical degenerative disc disease with the bryan disc prosthesis: a prospective study with 2-year follow-up. Acta Orthop Belg. 2011;77(6):809-15.

 

Wang Y, Zhang X, Xiao S, et al. Clinical report of cervical arthroplasty in management of spondylotic myelopathy in Chinese. J Orthop Surg Res. 2006;1:13

 

Wenger M, Hoonacker P, Zachee B, et al. Bryan cervical disc prostheses: preservation of function over time. J Clin Neurosci. 2009;16(2):220-5.

 

Wigfield C, Gill S, Nelson R, et al. Influence of an artificial cervical joint compared with fusion on adjacent-level motion in the treatment of degenerative cervical disc disease. J Neurosurg. 2002;96(1 suppl):17-21.

 

Wu AM, Xu H, Mullinix KP, et al. Minimum 4-year outcomes of cervical total disc arthroplasty versus fusion: a meta-analysis based on prospective randomized controlled trials. Medicine (Baltimore). 2015;94(15):e665.

 

Wu JC, Huang WC, Tsai HW, et al. Differences between 1- and 2-level cervical arthroplasty: more heterotopic ossification in 2-level disc replacement: Clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine. 2013;16(6):594-600.

 

Yanbin Z, Yu S, Zhongqiang C, et al. Sagittal alignment comparison of Bryan disc arthroplasty with ProDisc-C arthroplasty: a prospective, randomized controlled clinical trial. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2011;24(6):381-5.

 

Yang S, Hu Y, Zhao J, et al. Follow-up study on the motion range after treatment of degenerative disc disease with the Bryan cervical disc prosthesis. J Huazhong Univ Sci Technolog Med Sci. 2007;27(2):176-8.

 

Yang S, Wu X, Hu Y, et al. Early and intermediate follow-up results after treatment of degenerative disc disease with the BRYAN cervical disc prosthesis: single- and multiple-level. Spine. 2008;33(12):E371-7.

 

Yang YC, Nie L, Cheng L, et al. Clinical and radiographic reports following cervical arthroplasty: a 24-month follow-up. Int Orthop. 2009;33(4):1037-42.

 

Yi S, Kim KN, Yang MS, et al. Difference in occurrence of heterotopic ossification according to prosthesis type in the cervical artificial disc replacement. Spine. 2010;35(16):1556-61.

 

Yi S, Lee DY, Ahn PG, et al. Radiologically documented adjacent-segment degeneration after cervical arthroplasty: characteristics and review of cases. Surg Neurol. 2009;72(4):325-9.

 

Yoon DH, Yi S, Shin HC, et al. Clinical and radiological results following cervical arthroplasty. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2006; 148(9):943-50.

 

Zeegers WS, Bohnen LM, Laaper M, Verhaegen MJ. Artificial disc replacement with the modular type SB Charite III: 2-year results in 50 prospectively studied patients. Eur Spine J. 1999;8(3):210-217.

 

Zhang HX, Chen Y, Gao P, et al. Clinical and radiographic evaluation of cervical disk replacement: a retrospective study. Orthopedics. 2014;37(11):e956-61.

 

Zhang HX, Shao YD, Chen Y, et al. A prospective, randomised, controlled multicentre study comparing cervical disc replacement with anterior cervical decompression and fusion. Int Orthop. 2014;38(12):2533-41.

 

Zhang X, Zhang X, Chen C, et al. Randomized, controlled, multicenter, clinical trial comparing BRYAN cervical disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical decompression and fusion in China. Spine. 2012;37(6):433-8.

 

Zhang Y, Liang C, Tao Y, et al. Cervical total disc replacement is superior to anterior cervical decompression and fusion: a meta-analysis of prospective randomized controlled trials. PLoS One. 2015;10(3):e0117826.

 

Zhao YB, Sun Y, Chen ZQ, et al. Application of cervical arthroplasty with Bryan cervical disc: long-term X-ray and magnetic resonance imaging follow-up results. Chin Med J (Engl). 2010;123(21):2999-3002.

 

Zigler JE, Delamarter R, Murrey D, et al. ProDisc-C and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion as surgical treatment for single-level cervical symptomatic degenerative disc disease: five-year results of a Food and Drug Administration study. Spine. 2013;38(3):203-9.

 

Zigler JE, Delamarter RB, Spivak JM, et al. Results of the prospective, randomized, multi-center FDA investigational device exemption study of the ProDisc-L total disc replacement versus circumferential fusion for the treatment of one level degenerative disc disease. Spine. 2007;32(11):1155-1162.

 

Zigler JE. Five-year results of the ProDisc-L multicenter, prospective, randomized, controlled trial comparing ProDisc-L with circumferential spinal fusion for single-level disabling degenerative disk disease. Semin Spine Surg. 2012;21(1):25-31.​​



Coding

CPT Procedure Code Number(s)
MEDICALLY NECESSARY

0095T, 0098T, 22856, 22858, 22861, 22864 



ICD - 10 Procedure Code Number(s)
N/A

ICD - 10 Diagnosis Code Number(s)

MEDICALLY NECESSARY

M50.020 Cervical disc disorder with myelopathy, mid-cervical region, unspecified level

M50.021 Cervical disc disorder at C4-C5 level with myelopathy

M50.022 Cervical disc disorder at C5-C6 level with myelopathy

M50.023 Cervical disc disorder at C6-C7 level with myelopathy

M50.120 Mid-cervical disc disorder, unspecified level

M50.121 Cervical disc disorder at C4-C5 level with radiculopathy

M50.122 Cervical disc disorder at C5-C6 level with radiculopathy

M50.123 Cervical disc disorder at C6-C7 level with radiculopathy

M50.220 Other cervical disc displacement, mid-cervical region, unspecified level

M50.221 Other cervical disc displacement at C4-C5 level

M50.222 Other cervical disc displacement at C5-C6 level

M50.223 Other cervical disc displacement at C6-C7 level

M50.320 Other cervical disc degeneration, mid-cervical region, unspecified level

M50.321 Other cervical disc degeneration at C4-C5 level

M50.322 Other cervical disc degeneration at C5-C6 level

M50.323 Other cervical disc degeneration at C6-C7 level

HCPCS Level II Code Number(s)
N/A

Revenue Code Number(s)
N/A

N/A


Coding and Billing Requirements


Policy History

1/10/2021
1/8/2021
11.14.19
Medical Policy Bulletin
Commercial
No