Literature DB >> 20062568

Surgical outcome of cervical arthroplasty using bryan(r).

Hong-Ki Kim1, Myung-Hyun Kim, Do-Sang Cho, Sung-Hak Kim.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Recently, motion preservation has come to the forefront of emerging technologies in spine surgery. This is the important background information of the emergence of cervical arthroplasty as an alternative to arthrodesis that offers the promise of restoring normal spinal movement and reduces a kinematic strain on adjacent segments. The study was designed to evaluate early surgical outcome and radiological effects of Bryan(R) cervical disc prosthesis.
METHODS: The authors retrospectively reviewed radiographic and clinical outcomes in 52 patients who received the Bryan(R) Cervical Disc prosthesis, for whom follow-up data were available. Static and dynamic radiographs were measured by computer to determine the angles formed by the endplates of the natural disc preoperatively, those formed by the shells of the implanted prosthesis, the angle of functional spine unit (FSU), and the C2-7 Cobb angle. The range of motion (ROM) was also determined radiographically, whereas clinical outcomes were assessed using Odom's criteria, visual analogue pain scale (VAS) and neck disability index (NDI).
RESULTS: A total of 71 Bryan(R) disc were placed in 52 patients. A single-level procedure was performed in 36 patients, a two-level procedure in 13 patients, and a three-level procedure in 3. Radiographic and clinical assessments were made preoperatively. Mean follow-up duration was 29.2 months, ranging from 6 to 36 months. All of the patients were satisfied with the surgical results by Odom's criteria, and showed significant improvement by VAS and NDI score (p < 0.05). The postoperative ROM of the implanted level was preserved without significant difference from preoperative ROM of the operated level (p < 0.05). 97% of patients with a preoperative lordotic sagittal orientation of the FSU were able to maintain lordosis. The overall sagittal alignment of the cervical spine was preserved in 88.5% of cases at the final follow up. Interestingly, preoperatively kyphotic FSU resulted in lordotic FSU in 70% of patients during the late follow up, and preoperatively kyphotic overall cervical alignment resulted in lordosis in 66.6% of the patients postoperatively.
CONCLUSION: Arthroplasty using the Bryan(R) disc seemed to be safe and provided encouraging clinical and radiologic outcome in our study. Although the early results are promising, this is a relatively new approach, therefore long-term follow up studies are required to prove its efficacy and its ability to prevent adjacent segment disease.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Arthroplasty; Artificial disc; Bryan®; Cervical disc

Year:  2009        PMID: 20062568      PMCID: PMC2803268          DOI: 10.3340/jkns.2009.46.6.532

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Korean Neurosurg Soc        ISSN: 1225-8245


  20 in total

1.  Strain on intervertebral discs after anterior cervical decompression and fusion.

Authors:  S Matsunaga; S Kabayama; T Yamamoto; K Yone; T Sakou; K Nakanishi
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1999-04-01       Impact factor: 3.468

2.  Radiculopathy and myelopathy at segments adjacent to the site of a previous anterior cervical arthrodesis.

Authors:  A S Hilibrand; G D Carlson; M A Palumbo; P K Jones; H H Bohlman
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 5.284

3.  The anterior approach for removal of ruptured cervical disks.

Authors:  R B CLOWARD
Journal:  J Neurosurg       Date:  1958-11       Impact factor: 5.115

4.  The treatment of certain cervical-spine disorders by anterior removal of the intervertebral disc and interbody fusion.

Authors:  G W SMITH; R A ROBINSON
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1958-06       Impact factor: 5.284

5.  The treatment of ruptured lumbar intervertebral disc by vertebral body fusion. III. Method of use of banked bone.

Authors:  R B CLOWARD
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  1952-12       Impact factor: 12.969

6.  Influence of an artificial cervical joint compared with fusion on adjacent-level motion in the treatment of degenerative cervical disc disease.

Authors:  Crispin Wigfield; Steven Gill; Richard Nelson; Ilana Langdon; Newton Metcalf; James Robertson
Journal:  J Neurosurg       Date:  2002-01       Impact factor: 5.115

Review 7.  Early clinical and biomechanical results following cervical arthroplasty.

Authors:  Neil Duggal; Gwynedd E Pickett; Demytra K Mitsis; Jana L Keller
Journal:  Neurosurg Focus       Date:  2004-09-15       Impact factor: 4.047

8.  Clinical significance of heterotopic ossification in cervical disc replacement: a prospective multicenter clinical trial.

Authors:  Clarence Leung; Adrian Th Casey; Jan Goffin; Pierre Kehr; Klaus Liebig; Bengt Lind; Carlo Logroscino; Vincent Pointillart
Journal:  Neurosurgery       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 4.654

9.  Comparative analysis of cervical arthroplasty using mobi-c(r) and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion using the solis(r) -cage.

Authors:  Jin Hoon Park; Kwang Ho Roh; Ji Young Cho; Young Shin Ra; Seung Chul Rhim; Sung Woo Noh
Journal:  J Korean Neurosurg Soc       Date:  2008-10-30

10.  The Bryan Cervical Disc: wear properties and early clinical results.

Authors:  Paul A Anderson; Rick C Sasso; Jeffrey P Rouleau; Cathy S Carlson; Jan Goffin
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2004 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 4.166

View more
  5 in total

1.  Cervical Radiculopathy due to Cervical Degenerative Diseases : Anatomy, Diagnosis and Treatment.

Authors:  Kyoung-Tae Kim; Young-Baeg Kim
Journal:  J Korean Neurosurg Soc       Date:  2010-12-31

2.  Five-year results of cervical disc prostheses in the SWISSspine registry.

Authors:  Emin Aghayev; Christian Bärlocher; Friedrich Sgier; Mustafa Hasdemir; Klaus F Steinsiepe; Frank Wernli; François Porchet; Oliver Hausmann; Aymen Ramadan; Gianluca Maestretti; Uwe Ebeling; Michal Neukamp; Christoph Röder
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-04-13       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 3.  Multi-level cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) versus single-level CDA for the treatment of cervical disc diseases: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Hua Zhao; Lei Cheng; Yong Hou; Yi Liu; Ben Liu; Jyoti Joshi Mundra; Lin Nie
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2014-06-25       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  Cervical artificial disc replacement versus fusion in the cervical spine: a systematic review comparing multilevel versus single-level surgery.

Authors:  Christopher K Kepler; Erika D Brodt; Joseph R Dettori; Todd J Albert
Journal:  Evid Based Spine Care J       Date:  2012-02

5.  One-Level Versus 2-Level Treatment With Cervical Disc Arthroplasty or Fusion: Outcomes Up to 7 Years.

Authors:  Matthew F Gornet; Todd H Lanman; J Kenneth Burkus; Scott D Hodges; Jeffrey R McConnell; Randall F Dryer; Francine W Schranck; Anne G Copay
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2019-12-31
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.