BACKGROUND: The CTDR is a technique that treats cervical disc degenerative disease. Initial shorter-term studies showed good clinical and radiological results. PURPOSE: To assess the clinical and radiological results of Bryan cervical disc replacement (Medtronic Sofamor Danek Inc., Memphis, TN) at 15-year follow-up. RESULTS: This prospective study included 20 patients who underwent 22 CTDR, comprising a single-level procedure in 14 patients and two-level procedures in six patients. The mean follow-up period was 15.5 years. The mean age at the intervention was 46.2 years (range: 26-65 years). Two patients needed re-operation for recurrence of symptoms. According to Odom's criteria, 80.0% (16 of 20 patients) had excellent outcomes, VAS for neck pain was 2.6 (0-10), for shoulder/arm pain it was 1.8 (0-7), and NDI at the final follow up was 14.9. The SF-12 PCS was 46.1, and SF-12 MCS was 51.9. Mobility was maintained in 15 of the 22 (68.2%) operated segments, range of motion (ROM) of prostheses were 9° ± 3.9° (range 4-15°). The prostheses were positioned in kyphosis in 14 of 22 levels (63.6%). There was a positive correlation between the kyphosis of the prosthesis and the occurrence of heterotopic ossification (HO), and their grade (ρ = 0.36, CI 95%[-0.68; 0.07]). HO had developed at 12 of the 22 levels (54.5%) and upper adjacent segment degeneration in 11 of 18 of patients (64.7%). All these results were not significantly different to outcomes at 8 years follow-up. CONCLUSION: In a cohort of 20 patients with 15-year clinical and radiological follow-up, the Bryan CTDR has demonstrated a sustained clinical improvement and implant mobility over time, despite a moderate progression of degenerative processes at the prosthetic and adjacent levels.
BACKGROUND: The CTDR is a technique that treats cervical disc degenerative disease. Initial shorter-term studies showed good clinical and radiological results. PURPOSE: To assess the clinical and radiological results of Bryan cervical disc replacement (Medtronic Sofamor Danek Inc., Memphis, TN) at 15-year follow-up. RESULTS: This prospective study included 20 patients who underwent 22 CTDR, comprising a single-level procedure in 14 patients and two-level procedures in six patients. The mean follow-up period was 15.5 years. The mean age at the intervention was 46.2 years (range: 26-65 years). Two patients needed re-operation for recurrence of symptoms. According to Odom's criteria, 80.0% (16 of 20 patients) had excellent outcomes, VAS for neck pain was 2.6 (0-10), for shoulder/arm pain it was 1.8 (0-7), and NDI at the final follow up was 14.9. The SF-12 PCS was 46.1, and SF-12 MCS was 51.9. Mobility was maintained in 15 of the 22 (68.2%) operated segments, range of motion (ROM) of prostheses were 9° ± 3.9° (range 4-15°). The prostheses were positioned in kyphosis in 14 of 22 levels (63.6%). There was a positive correlation between the kyphosis of the prosthesis and the occurrence of heterotopic ossification (HO), and their grade (ρ = 0.36, CI 95%[-0.68; 0.07]). HO had developed at 12 of the 22 levels (54.5%) and upper adjacent segment degeneration in 11 of 18 of patients (64.7%). All these results were not significantly different to outcomes at 8 years follow-up. CONCLUSION: In a cohort of 20 patients with 15-year clinical and radiological follow-up, the Bryan CTDR has demonstrated a sustained clinical improvement and implant mobility over time, despite a moderate progression of degenerative processes at the prosthetic and adjacent levels.
Entities:
Keywords:
Adjacent segment disease; Bryan cervical prosthesis; Cervical total disc replacement; Heterotopic ossification; Prospective study
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: Joris Walraevens; Philippe Demaerel; Paul Suetens; Frank Van Calenbergh; Johan van Loon; Jozef Vander Sloten; Jan Goffin Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 4.654
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: Anna Lang; Sara Lener; Lukas Grassner; Anto Abramovic; Claudius Thomé; Dennis Päsler; Jens Lehmberg; Ralph Schär; Sebastian Hartmann Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2022-10-11 Impact factor: 2.721