ACDF
Fusing the level instead of replacing the disc. Suits a wider range of anatomy and remains the right choice in many necks.
Compare the two ›The same operation as an ACDF up to the point the disc comes out. Instead of fusing the level, a mobile artificial disc goes in, so it keeps moving. In the right patient the evidence at seven years is genuinely good, with fewer people needing further surgery than after a fusion.

At a glance
Anaesthetic
General
Approach
From the front of the neck
Hospital stay
Approximately 1 to 3 days
Levels treated
Usually one or two
Driving
Restricted for about 4 to 6 weeks
Swimming
Avoided for 4 to 6 weeks
Lifting
Heavy lifting avoided early on
Fusion
None, motion preserved
These are the practice's published recovery figures for this operation. Lifting, bending and twisting may also be restricted, and how quickly each restriction lifts depends on how your own recovery progresses.
WHAT IT INVOLVES
The approach, the incision and the decompression are the same as an ACDF. The difference is what goes into the space afterwards, and what that means for the years that follow.
01
Same small incision in a crease at the front of the neck, same route between the tissue planes, same removal of the disc and whatever is pressing on the nerve or cord. If you have read about ACDF, you already know most of this operation.
02
The device is sized to your anatomy and seated precisely against prepared bone surfaces. Positioning matters more here than with a fusion, because a device that is not sitting well will not move the way it should.
03
There is no fusion to wait for, which is why the hospital stay published for this operation is shorter than for a fusion. It also means smoking, which is a real problem for fusion, is less of an obstacle here, though it remains bad for healing generally.
WHO IT SUITS
Disc replacement performs well in the right neck and poorly in the wrong one. Being turned down for it is not bad news; it means the anatomy would not support it.
THE EVIDENCE
This is one of the better-studied questions in spine surgery, because artificial discs had to be trialled against fusion to be approved. A meta-analysis pooled 11 randomised trials.
4.3% vs 10.8%
Surgery at a neighbouring level, by 7 years
After a single-level procedure, 4.3 per cent of disc replacement patients needed surgery at an adjacent level within seven years, against 10.8 per cent after ACDF. The difference was statistically significant.
Journal of Spine Surgery, 2020
5.2% vs 12.7%
Further surgery at the treated level, by 7 years
Reoperation at the original level was also lower after disc replacement, 5.2 per cent against 12.7 per cent for ACDF. A similar pattern held for two-level procedures.
Journal of Spine Surgery, 2020
How to read this
At two years the two operations were not significantly different: 2.3 per cent against 3.6 per cent for adjacent-level surgery. The advantage only becomes clear with time, which is exactly why it matters more for a patient in their forties than for one in their seventies.
These are averages from selected trial populations, and patients in those trials met strict criteria. If your anatomy does not meet similar criteria, the results do not transfer to you. That is the honest limit of this evidence, and it is why selection is discussed so carefully.
RISKS, HONESTLY
Common, usually temporary
Same front-of-neck approach as an ACDF, so the same early sore throat and odd swallowing for days to weeks. It settles in the large majority of people.
Uncommon
A nerve to the voice box runs close to the approach. Temporary change happens; lasting hoarseness is uncommon.
Variable, often silent
Bone can grow around the implant over time and gradually reduce the movement it was placed to preserve. Often it causes no symptoms, but it can partly defeat the purpose of the operation.
Uncommon
The implant can sit less well than intended, settle, or rarely move from position. This is the main reason precise sizing and placement matter so much.
About 1 in 19 by 7 years
Pooled trial data found 5.2 per cent needed reoperation at the treated level within seven years, against 12.7 per cent after ACDF.
Under 1 in 100
As with any anterior cervical operation these are uncommon. National data for the anterior approach records neurological complications in roughly 0.3 to 0.6 per 100 and wound infection well under 1 in 100.
One honest caveat about the evidence base: many of the trials comparing artificial discs with fusion were funded by device manufacturers, which is normal for approval studies but is worth knowing when reading strongly positive results. The adjacent-level findings above come from a pooled analysis of randomised trials rather than a single study, which is the more reliable form of that evidence.
RECOVERY
IN HOSPITAL
The practice's guidance for disc replacement is a hospital stay of about one to three days, shorter than the three to five days published for a fusion. A physiotherapist assesses your recovery before you go home.
AT HOME
Keep the wound clean and dry, adapting bathing or covering it as instructed, and avoid touching it. Unlike a fusion, there is nothing at the treated level that has to knit together.
4 TO 6 WEEKS
Driving is restricted for approximately four to six weeks, depending on how recovery progresses, and swimming is avoided for four to six weeks.
GOING BACK TO WORK
A temporary return on modified or restricted duties is common. Heavy lifting is avoided during the initial recovery period, and lifting, bending or twisting may be restricted while you recover.
In a stiff, collapsed or unstable level there is little movement left to preserve, and a device placed there will not do what it was chosen to do. Being turned down for an artificial disc is not bad news: it means the anatomy would not support one, and a fusion is the better operation rather than a consolation prize.
COMMON QUESTIONS
Better for the right patient, not better in general. At seven years it shows lower rates of further surgery, but only in people whose anatomy suits it. In a stiff, collapsed or unstable level a fusion is the better operation, and it is not a consolation prize.
Trial follow-up extends to around seven years with most devices performing well. Beyond that the data thins out, because these implants have not been in use long enough. That uncertainty is a genuine consideration for a young patient.
Generally no. Modern implants are small and typically do not trigger security screening. It is worth mentioning if you are asked, but it is not something to plan around.
Yes. Current cervical disc implants are MRI compatible, though the images immediately around the device can be less clear.
It can be converted to a fusion. That is a bigger operation than the original, but it is a well-established fallback, and knowing the exit exists is part of judging the risk.
Usually because something about the level rules out an artificial disc: it is too worn or stiff, the alignment is off, the bone quality is not adequate, or the facet joints are arthritic. Ask specifically which of those applies to you. It should be a clear answer.
ALTERNATIVES
Fusing the level instead of replacing the disc. Suits a wider range of anatomy and remains the right choice in many necks.
Compare the two ›Frees a trapped nerve from the back without any device at all. Also motion preserving, with its own trade-offs.
About foraminotomy ›Most nerve pain settles without surgery. Unless the cord is at risk, this comes first.
Do I need surgery? ›This page is general information about a procedure and is not advice about your own case. The outcome and complication figures come from the published studies listed below and describe large groups of patients. The recovery figures are the practice's published guidance for this operation, not a commitment about your own recovery. More about Dr Tollesson.
References
Cervical disc arthroplasty versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a meta-analysis of rates of adjacent-level surgery to 7-year follow-up. Journal of Spine Surgery, 2020, pooling 11 randomised controlled trials, for the adjacent-level and index-level reoperation rates quoted above.
Surgeon Procedure Volume and Complication Rates in Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusions. Clinical Spine Surgery, 2017, for anterior approach complication rates.
A consultation will tell you honestly whether your anatomy supports an artificial disc, and what the alternative would offer instead. A GP or specialist referral is needed for a Medicare rebate.