Joost Dejaegher1, Joris Walraevens2, Johannes van Loon3, Frank Van Calenbergh3, Philippe Demaerel4, Jan Goffin3. 1. Department of Neurosurgery, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. Joost.dejaegher@uzleuven.be. 2. Division of Biomechanics, KU Leuven, Heverlee, Belgium. 3. Department of Neurosurgery, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. 4. Department of Radiology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Cervical arthroplasty is being used as an alternative for cervical fusion, but long-term follow-up results have rarely been reported. In this paper, we present 10-year follow-up results after implantation of the Bryan Cervical Disc Prosthesis in a single center. METHODS: 89 patients underwent implantation of a single-level Bryan Cervical Disc Prosthesis to treat radiculopathy and/or myelopathy. Clinical (Neurological Success, Neck Disability Index (NDI), Neck- and Arm-Pain, and SF-36) and radiological follow-up was prospectively organized up to 10 years after surgery. Adverse events and second surgeries were recorded and evaluated. RESULTS: Ten-year follow-up data were available for 72 (81%) patients. Maintenance or improvement of the neurological state was seen in 89% of patients after 10-year follow-up. SF-36 PCS scores improved significantly at all follow-up points. SF-36 MCS improvement was significant at 4 and 6 year, but not at 8- and 10-year follow-up. Significant improvement for NDI, and Neck- and Arm-Pain scores was found for the subgroup of patients in whom these data were available. Mean angular motion of the prosthesis at 10-year follow-up was 8.6°. Mobility of the device, defined as >2° of angular motion, was reached in 81% of patients. During the study period, 21 patients (24%) developed new or recurrent radiculopathy or myelopathy, the majority of these being treated conservatively. Seven patients (8%) required 8 additional spine surgeries to treat persistent or recurrent symptoms. Of these, 2 patients (2%) were reoperated at the index level and at 5 (6%) an adjacent level. CONCLUSION: In this study, favorable long-term clinical outcome after implantation of the Bryan Cervical Disc Prosthesis was seen, with the majority of prostheses remaining mobile after 10-year follow-up. However, still 6% of patients required adjacent level surgery.
PURPOSE: Cervical arthroplasty is being used as an alternative for cervical fusion, but long-term follow-up results have rarely been reported. In this paper, we present 10-year follow-up results after implantation of the Bryan Cervical Disc Prosthesis in a single center. METHODS: 89 patients underwent implantation of a single-level Bryan Cervical Disc Prosthesis to treat radiculopathy and/or myelopathy. Clinical (Neurological Success, Neck Disability Index (NDI), Neck- and Arm-Pain, and SF-36) and radiological follow-up was prospectively organized up to 10 years after surgery. Adverse events and second surgeries were recorded and evaluated. RESULTS: Ten-year follow-up data were available for 72 (81%) patients. Maintenance or improvement of the neurological state was seen in 89% of patients after 10-year follow-up. SF-36 PCS scores improved significantly at all follow-up points. SF-36 MCS improvement was significant at 4 and 6 year, but not at 8- and 10-year follow-up. Significant improvement for NDI, and Neck- and Arm-Pain scores was found for the subgroup of patients in whom these data were available. Mean angular motion of the prosthesis at 10-year follow-up was 8.6°. Mobility of the device, defined as >2° of angular motion, was reached in 81% of patients. During the study period, 21 patients (24%) developed new or recurrent radiculopathy or myelopathy, the majority of these being treated conservatively. Seven patients (8%) required 8 additional spine surgeries to treat persistent or recurrent symptoms. Of these, 2 patients (2%) were reoperated at the index level and at 5 (6%) an adjacent level. CONCLUSION: In this study, favorable long-term clinical outcome after implantation of the Bryan Cervical Disc Prosthesis was seen, with the majority of prostheses remaining mobile after 10-year follow-up. However, still 6% of patients required adjacent level surgery.
Authors: Rick C Sasso; Newton H Metcalf; John A Hipp; Nicholas D Wharton; Paul A Anderson Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2011-06 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Michael S Hisey; Hyun W Bae; Reginald J Davis; Steven Gaede; Greg Hoffman; Kee D Kim; Pierce D Nunley; Daniel Peterson; Ralph F Rashbaum; John Stokes; Donna D Ohnmeiss Journal: J Spinal Disord Tech Date: 2015-05
Authors: John G Heller; Rick C Sasso; Stephen M Papadopoulos; Paul A Anderson; Richard G Fessler; Robert J Hacker; Domagoj Coric; Joseph C Cauthen; Daniel K Riew Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2009-01-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Jan Goffin; Adrian Casey; Pierre Kehr; Klaus Liebig; Bengt Lind; Carlo Logroscino; Vincent Pointillart; Frank Van Calenbergh; Johannes van Loon Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2002-09 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: Daniel Murrey; Michael Janssen; Rick Delamarter; Jeffrey Goldstein; Jack Zigler; Bobby Tay; Bruce Darden Journal: Spine J Date: 2008-09-06 Impact factor: 4.166
Authors: Jack E Zigler; Rick Delamarter; Dan Murrey; Jeffrey Spivak; Michael Janssen Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2013-02-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Christoph Mehren; Franziska Heider; Christoph J Siepe; Bernhard Zillner; Ralph Kothe; Andreas Korge; H Michael Mayer Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2017-07-04 Impact factor: 3.134