Literature DB >> 20192625

A clinical analysis of 4- and 6-year follow-up results after cervical disc replacement surgery using the Bryan Cervical Disc Prosthesis.

Jan Goffin1, Johan van Loon, Frank Van Calenbergh, Bailey Lipscomb.   

Abstract

OBJECT: In this study, long-term results are presented from clinical studies of the Bryan Cervical Disc Prosthesis at University Hospital Gasthuisberg in Leuven, Belgium. A total of 98 patients (89 with 1-level and 9 with 2-level implantations) agreed to participate in follow-up studies for up to 10 years postoperatively. This article focuses on the 4- and 6-year results. Patients in one of the clinical studies had either radiculopathy or myelopathy associated with spondylosis and/or disc herniations that did not respond to conservative treatment. Patients from the other clinical study received commercially available Bryan devices and the study protocol did not have specific inclusion/exclusion criteria. More than 90% of the patients were considered to have radiculopathy.
METHODS: Clinical measurements discussed in the article include the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey, Neck Disability Index, numerical ratings of neck and arm pain, neurological outcomes, and Odom classification. Angular motion findings from lateral flexion-extension radiographs are also presented. The occurrence of adverse events and second surgeries are examined as an indicator of device safety.
RESULTS: The clinical outcomes at 4 and 6 years postoperatively appear consistent with the previously reported results at 1 and 2 years postoperatively. The mean angular motion results at 4 and 6 years postoperatively for 1-level patients were 7.3 and 7.7 degrees, respectively. Two-level patients had slightly less motion at 4 and 6 years postoperatively with mean caudad values of 5.7 and 6.0 degrees, respectively, and cephalad values of 4.2 and 6.2 degrees, respectively. Efforts were made to capture adverse events, regardless of their nature and relatedness to the study surgery. This effort resulted in a relatively high number of recorded events. However, only 6 patients experienced events that were judged by the investigator to be related, either possibly or definitely, to the Bryan device. These events included device migration, device removal, and hoarseness and vocal cord paralysis, as well as 3 cases involving pain and neurological symptoms. Eight patients underwent further neck surgery to treat symptoms.
CONCLUSIONS: The favorable clinical and angular motion outcomes that were previously noted at 1- and 2-years' follow-up after cervical disc replacement with the Bryan Cervical Disc Prosthesis appear to persist after 4 and 6 years of follow-up.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20192625     DOI: 10.3171/2009.9.SPINE09129

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Neurosurg Spine        ISSN: 1547-5646


  37 in total

Review 1.  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 2.  What's new in spine surgery.

Authors:  Keith H Bridwell; Paul A Anderson; Scott D Boden; Alexander R Vaccaro; Jeffrey C Wang
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2011-08-17       Impact factor: 5.284

3.  [The relevance of the sagittal profile in cervical artificial discs].

Authors:  C Carstens; M Carstens; F Copf
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2011-08       Impact factor: 1.087

4.  Cervical disc prosthesis versus arthrodesis using one-level, hybrid and two-level constructs: an in vitro investigation.

Authors:  Cédric Barrey; Sophie Campana; Sylvain Persohn; Gilles Perrin; Wafa Skalli
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-08-11       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  Midterm outcomes of total cervical total disc replacement with Bryan prosthesis.

Authors:  Zhenxiang Zhang; Wei Zhu; Lixian Zhu; Yaqing Du
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2014-02-11

6.  Effect of cervical artificial disc replacement on adjacent inferior intervertebral space stress.

Authors:  L K Chen; K H Li
Journal:  West Indian Med J       Date:  2014-03-17       Impact factor: 0.171

7.  Adjacent segment degeneration following ProDisc-C total disc replacement (TDR) and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF): does surgeon bias effect radiographic interpretation?

Authors:  Eric B Laxer; Craig D Brigham; Bruce V Darden; P Bradley Segebarth; R Alden Milam; Alfred L Rhyne; Susan M Odum; Leo R Spector
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2016-09-20       Impact factor: 3.134

8.  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

9.  The Latest Lessons Learned from Retrieval Analyses of Ultra-High Molecular Weight Polyethylene, Metal-on-Metal, and Alternative Bearing Total Disc Replacements.

Authors:  Steven M Kurtz; Jeffrey M Toth; Ryan Siskey; Lauren Ciccarelli; Dan Macdonald; Jorge Isaza; Todd Lanman; Ilona Punt; Marla Steinbeck; Jan Goffin; André van Ooij
Journal:  Semin Spine Surg       Date:  2012-03-01

Review 10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.