Literature DB >> 18679092

Motion analysis of bryan cervical disc arthroplasty versus anterior discectomy and fusion: results from a prospective, randomized, multicenter, clinical trial.

Rick C Sasso1, Natalie M Best, Newton H Metcalf, Paul A Anderson.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, multicenter clinical trial.
OBJECTIVE: Kinematic analysis of target level and adjacent motion segments after Bryan artificial cervical disc replacement versus anterior cervical fusion. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Disc arthroplasty has been shown to provide short-term clinical results that are comparable or better than those attained with traditional anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. One purported benefit of arthroplasty is the ability to prevent or delay adjacent level operations.
METHODS: All patients received either a single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with an anterior cervical plate (Atlantis anterior cervical plate, n=221) or a single-level artificial cervical disc replacement (Bryan cervical disc prosthesis, n=242) at C3 to C7. Flexion, extension, and neutral lateral radiographs were obtained preoperatively, and at regular intervals of 24 months. Cervical vertebral bodies were tracked to calculate the functional spinal unit motion parameters, including flexion/extension range of motion and translation. If visible, the functional spinal unit parameters were obtained at the operative level as well as the level above and below.
RESULTS: Significantly more motion was retained in the disc replacement group than the plated group at the index level. The disc replacement group retained an average of 7.95 degrees at 24 months. The preoperative motion was 6.43 degrees and there was no evidence of degradation of motion over 24 months. In contrast, the average range of motion in the fusion group was 1.11 degrees at 3-month follow-up and gradually decreased to 0.87 degrees at 24 months. The preoperative motion was 8.39 degrees. The Bryan disc did not migrate. At 24-month follow-up, there was no case of subsidence of the Bryan disc. There was no evidence of bridging bone across any of the Bryan implant disc spaces.
CONCLUSIONS: The Bryan disc treatment, on average, maintained flexion/extension range of motion without degradation over 24 months. No ectopic bridging ossification was seen in any of the Bryan discs and no subsidence or displacement of the Bryan disc occurred.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18679092     DOI: 10.1097/BSD.0b013e318150d121

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Spinal Disord Tech        ISSN: 1536-0652


  23 in total

1.  Three-dimensional kinematic analysis of the cervical spine after anterior cervical decompression and fusion at an adjacent level: a preliminary report.

Authors:  Sadayoshi Watanabe; Nozomu Inoue; Tomonori Yamaguchi; Yoshitaka Hirano; Alejandro A Espinoza Orías; Shintaro Nishida; Yuichi Hirose; Junichi Mizuno
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-11-29       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 2.  Cervical spine alignment in disc arthroplasty: should we change our perspective?

Authors:  Alberto Di Martino; Rocco Papalia; Erika Albo; Leonardo Cortesi; Luca Denaro; Vincenzo Denaro
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-10-06       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 3.  Motion analysis of single-level cervical total disc arthroplasty: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Jian Chen; Shun-wu Fan; Xin-wei Wang; Wen Yuan
Journal:  Orthop Surg       Date:  2012-05       Impact factor: 2.071

Review 4.  WITHDRAWN: Arthroplasty versus fusion in single-level cervical degenerative disc disease.

Authors:  Toon F M Boselie; Paul C Willems; Henk van Mameren; Rob de Bie; Edward C Benzel; Henk van Santbrink
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2015-05-21

Review 5.  Factors that may affect outcome in cervical artificial disc replacement: a systematic review.

Authors:  Jian Kang; Changgui Shi; Yifei Gu; Chengwei Yang; Rui Gao
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-07-09       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 6.  Adjacent level disease-background and update based on disc replacement data.

Authors:  I David Kaye; Alan S Hilibrand
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2017-06

Review 7.  Cervical disc replacement - emerging equivalency to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion.

Authors:  Aaron J Buckland; Joseph F Baker; Ryan P Roach; Jeffrey M Spivak
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2016-04-08       Impact factor: 3.075

8.  Is cervical disc arthroplasty superior to fusion for treatment of symptomatic cervical disc disease? A meta-analysis.

Authors:  Si Yin; Xiao Yu; Shuangli Zhou; Zhanhai Yin; Yusheng Qiu
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2013-02-07       Impact factor: 4.176

9.  Anterior cervical discectomy with fusion in patients with cervical disc degeneration: a prospective outcome study of 258 patients (181 fused with autologous bone graft and 77 fused with a PEEK cage).

Authors:  Bjarne Lied; Paal Andre Roenning; Jarle Sundseth; Eirik Helseth
Journal:  BMC Surg       Date:  2010-03-21       Impact factor: 2.102

10.  A comparison of outcomes of cervical disc arthroplasty and fusion in everyday clinical practice: surgical and methodological aspects.

Authors:  Dieter Grob; Francois Porchet; Frank S Kleinstück; Friederike Lattig; Dezsoe Jeszenszky; Andrea Luca; Urs Mutter; Anne F Mannion
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-10-31       Impact factor: 3.134

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.