European Spine Journal

, Volume 24, Issue 12, pp 2872–2879 | Cite as

Bone loss of the superior adjacent vertebral body immediately posterior to the anterior flange of Bryan cervical disc

  • Sang Hyun Kim
  • Young Sun Chung
  • Alexander E. Ropper
  • Kyung Hoon Min
  • Tae Keun Ahn
  • Keun Soo Won
  • Dong Ah ShinEmail author
  • In Bo HanEmail author
Original Article



No previous reports have mentioned bone loss of the superior adjacent vertebra immediately posterior to the anterior flange of Bryan cervical disc (Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Memphis, TN, USA), which plays a central role to prevent posterior migration of the device. The purpose of this study is to describe a new potential complication, bone loss immediately posterior to the anterior total disc replacement (TDR) flange on the superior adjacent vertebra following the Bryan cervical TDR and to discuss the possible mechanism.


The authors retrospectively reviewed 37 patients undergoing cervical TDR with the Bryan cervical disc. The clinical and radiological outcome data were collected at 1, 3, 6, 12, 24, and 36 months postoperatively, and at last follow-up, which ranged from 42 to 113 moths (average, 60.1 months). Clinical evaluation included the visual analog scale and neck disability index, and the radiographic evaluation included measurements of the functional spinal unit range of motion on flexion and extension and identification of radiographic changes such as bone loss.


The Bryan TDR showed good mid-term clinical and radiological outcomes. Interestingly, however, bone loss was noted immediately posterior to the TDR flange on superior adjacent vertebra in 3 total patients; at 3 months (n = 2) and 6 months (n = 1). Although the bone loss was increased up to 6 months, this did not progress and no degradation of clinical and radiological outcomes occurred at last follow-up.


Bone loss immediately posterior to the anterior TDR flange on the superior adjacent vertebra can occur in the early postoperative period due to possibly stress shielding effect. However, it did not result in clinical changes or increased rates of graft failure at last follow-up. A long-term follow-up study is mandatory to evaluate the long-term effects of the bone loss.


Cervical disc disease Disc degeneration Total disc replacement Bryan disc 



This work was supported by the Korea Healthcare Technology Research and Development Project, Ministry for Health and Welfare Affairs (#A121956).

Conflict of interest

The authors report no conflict of interest concerning the materials or methods used in this study or the findings described in this paper. No benefits in any form have been or will be received from any commercial party related directly or indirectly to the subject of this manuscript.


  1. 1.
    Samartzis D, Shen FH, Goldberg EJ, An HS (2005) Is autograft the gold standard in achieving radiographic fusion in one-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with rigid anterior plate fixation? Spine 30:1756–1761CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Carrier CS, Bono M, Lebl DR (2013) Evidence-based analysis of adjacent segment degeneration and disease after ACDF: a systematic review. Spine J 13:1370–1378CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lundine KM, Davis G, Rogers M, Staples M, Quan G (2014) Prevalence of adjacent segment disc degeneration in patients with undergoing anterior cervical discectomy and fusion based on pre-operative MRI findings. J Clin Neurosci 21:82–85CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ding C, Hong Y, Liu H, Shi R, Hu T, Li T (2012) Intermediate clinical outcome of Bryan cervical disc replacement for degenerative disk disease and its effect on adjacent segment disks. Orthopedics 35:e909–e916CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Goffin J, Casey A, Kehr P, Liebig K, Lind B, Loqroscino C, Pointillart V, Van Calenbergh F, van Loon J (2002) Preliminary clinical experience with the Bryan cervical disc prosthesis. Neurosurgery 51:840–847PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Heller JG, Sasso RC, Papadopoulos SM, Anderson PA, Fessler RG, Hacker RJ, Coric D, Cauthen JC, Riew DK (2009) Comparison of BRYAN cervical disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical decompression and fusion: clinical and radiographic results of a randomized controlled clinical trial. Spine 34:101–107CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ryu WH, Kowalczyk I, Duggal N (2013) Long-term kinematic analysis of cervical spine after single-level implantation of Bryan cervical disc prosthesis. Spine J 13(6):628–634CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Walraevens J, Demaerel P, Suetens P, Van Calenbergh F, van Loon J, Goffin J (2010) Longitudinal prospective long-term radiographic follow-up after treatment of single-level cervical disc with the Bryan cervical disc. Neurosurgery 67:679–687CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yi S, Shin DA, Kim KN, Choi G, Shin HC, Kim KS, Yoon DH (2013) The predisposing factors for the heterotopic ossification after cervical artificial disc replacement. Spine J 13:1048–1054CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hacker FM, Babcock RM, Hacker RJ (2013) Very late complications of cervical arthroplasty. Spine 38(26):2223–2226CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Murrey D, Janssen M, Delamarter R, Goldstein J, Zigler J, Tay B, Darden B (2009) Results of the prospective, controlled multicenter food and drug administration investigational device exemption study of the ProDisc-C total disc replacement versus anterior discectomy and fusion for the treatment of 1-level symptomatic cervical disc disease. Spine J 9:275–286CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Carreon LY, Bratcher KR, Das N, Nienhuis JB, Glassman SD (2014) Estimating EQ-5D values from the neck disability index and numeric rating scales for neck and arm pain. J Neurosurg Spine 21(3):394–399CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Zoeqa B, Karrholm J, Lind B (2000) Outcome scores in degenerative cervical disc surgery. Eur Spine J 9(2):137–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Quan GM, Vital JM, Hansen S, Poinillart V (2011) Eight-year clinical and radiological follow-up of the Bryan cervical disc arthroplasty. Spine 36(8):639–646CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Michaela G, Denise H, Liebensteiner M, Michael BM (2008) Foot print mismatch in lumbar total disc arthroplasty. Eur Spine J 17(11):1470–1475PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Malham GM, Parker RM, Ellis NJ, Chan PG, Varma D (2014) Cervical artificial disc replacement with ProDisc-C: Clinical and radiographic outcomes with long-term follow-up. J Clin Neurosci 21(6):949–953CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mummaneni PV, Burkus JK, Haid RW, Traynelis VC, Zdeblick TA (2007) Clinical and radiographic analysis of cervical disc arthroplasty compared with allograft fusion: a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Neurosurg Spine 6(3):198–209CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Shrout PE, Fleiss JL (1979) Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull 86(2):420–428CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gstoettner M, Sekyra K, Walochnik N, Winter P, Wachter R, Bach CM (2007) Inter- and intraobserver reliability assessment of the Cobb angle: manual versus digital measurement tools. Eur Spine J 16:1587–1592PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Veruva SY, Lanman TH, Hanzlik JA, Kurtz SM, Steinbeck MJ (2014) Rare complications of osteolysis and periprosthetic tissue reactions after hybrid and non-hybrid total disc replacement. Eur Spine J. doi: 10.1007/s00586-014-3535-0 Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kang DG, Wagner SC, Lehman RA Jr (2014) Osteolysis in the setting of metal-on-metal cervical disc arthroplasty. Spine J 14(7):1362–1365CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tumialan LM, Gluf WM (2011) Progressive vertebral body osteolysis after disc arthroplasty. Spine 36(14):E973–E978CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zijlstra WP, van der Veen HC, van den Akker-Scheek I, Zee MJ, Bulstra SK, van Raay JJ (2014) Acetabular bone density and metal ions after metal-on-metal versus metal-on-polyethylene total hip arthroplasty; short-term results. Hip Int 24(2):136–143CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Boyle C, Kim IY (2011) Comparison of different hip prosthesis shapes considering micro-level bone remodeling and stress-shielding criteria using three-dimensional design space topology optimization. J Biomech 44(9):1772–1778CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Huiskes R, Weinans H, Van Reitbergen B (1992) The relationship between stress shielding and bone resorption around total hip stems and the effects of flexible materials. Clin Orthop 274:124–134PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Dala F, Barnoud R, Fessy MH, Besse JL (2013) Histologic study of periprosthetic osteolytic lesions after AES total ankle replacement A 22 case series. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 99(6):S285–S295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gallo J, Goodman SB, Konttinen YT, Wimmer MA, Holinka M (2013) Osteolysis around total knee arthroplasty: a review of pathogenic mechanisms. Acta Biomater 9(9):8046–8058PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Piao C, Wu D, Luo M, Ma H (2014) Stress shielding effects of two prosthetic groups after total hip joint stimulation. J Orthop Surg Res 9:71PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Au AG, James Raso V, Liggins AB, Amirfazli A (2007) Contribution of loading conditions and material properties to stress shielding near the tibial component of total knee replacements. J Biomech 40(6):1410–1416CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ang KC, Das DS, Goh JC, Low SL, Bose K (1997) Periprosthetic bone remodeling after cementless total hip replacement. A prospective comparison of two different implant designs. J Bone Joint Surg. (Br) 79:675–679CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sang Hyun Kim
    • 1
  • Young Sun Chung
    • 2
  • Alexander E. Ropper
    • 3
  • Kyung Hoon Min
    • 4
  • Tae Keun Ahn
    • 5
  • Keun Soo Won
    • 6
  • Dong Ah Shin
    • 7
    Email author
  • In Bo Han
    • 6
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of NeurosurgeryAjou UniversitySuwonKorea
  2. 2.Department of NeurosurgeryKunkuk UniversityChungjuKorea
  3. 3.Department of NeurosurgeryBarrow Neurological InstitutePhoenixUSA
  4. 4.Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, CHA Bundang Medical CenterCHA UniversitySeongnamKorea
  5. 5.Department of Orthopedics, CHA Bundang Medical CenterCHA UniversitySeongnamKorea
  6. 6.Department of Neurosurgery, CHA Bundang Medical CenterCHA UniversitySeongnam-siKorea
  7. 7.Department of Neurosurgery, Severance HospitalYonsei UniversitySeoulKorea

Personalised recommendations