International Orthopaedics

, 33:1347 | Cite as

Fusion versus Bryan Cervical Disc in two-level cervical disc disease: a prospective, randomised study

Original Paper

Abstract

In this prospective study, our aim was to compare the functional results and radiographic outcomes of fusion and Bryan Cervical Disc replacement in the treatment of two-level cervical disc disease. A total of 65 patients with two-level cervical disc disease were randomly assigned to two groups, those operated on with Bryan Cervical Disc replacement (31) and those operated on with anterior cervical fusion with an iliac crest autograft and plate (34). Clinical evaluation was carried out using the visual analogue scale (VAS), the Short Form 36 (SF-36) and the neck disability index (NDI) during a two year follow-up. Radiological evaluation sought evidence of range of motion, stability and subsidence of the prosthesis. Substantial reduction in NDI scores occurred in both groups, with greater percent improvement in the Bryan group (P = 0.023). The arm pain VAS score improvement was substantial in both groups. Bryan artificial cervical disc replacement seems reliable and safe in the treatment of patients with two-level cervical disc disease.

Keywords

Neck Disability Index Cervical Disc Disc Replacement Cervical Disc Arthroplasty Neck Disability Index Score 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Résumé

Cette étude prospective a pour but de comparer les résultats fonctionnels et radiographiques des patients ayant bénéficié soit d’une fusion, soit d’une athrodèse, soit d’une prothèse discale dans le traitement des lésions dégénératives des disques cervicaux portant sur deux niveaux. 65 patients présentant de telles lésions ont été randomisés en deux groupes, ceux traités par la prothèse discale de Bryan (31) et ceux traités par ostéosynthèse antérieure avec autogreffe illiaque et plaque (34). L’évaluation clinique a été réalisée en utilisant le score douleur VAS, (échelle analogique), le score SF-36, la raideur de la nuque index NDI, après deux ans de recul. L’évaluation radiologique permet de mettre en évidence les secteurs de mobilité de stabilité et la migration de la prothèse. Une diminution significative du score NDI est observée dans les deux groupes avec un pourcentage plus important d’amélioration dans le groupe des prothèses de type Bryan (p = 0.023). Le score douleur est nettement amélioré dans les deux groupes néanmoins il semble que la prothèse de type Bryan permet d’avoir des résultats beaucoup plus fiables et beaucoup plus sûrs dans le traitement de ces patients présentant des lésions discales dégénératives cervicales sur deux niveaux.

References

  1. 1.
    Anderson PA, Sasso RC, Rouleau JP (2004) The Bryan Cervical Disc: wear properties and early clinical results. Spine J 4(6 Suppl):303S–309SPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Auerbach JD, Wills BP, McIntosh TC (2007) Evaluation of spinal kinematics following lumbar total disc replacement and circumferential fusion using in vivo fluoroscopy. Spine 32(5):527–536PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bertagnoli R, Yue JJ, Pfeiffer F (2005) Early results after ProDisc-C cervical disc replacement. J Neurosurg Spine 2:403–410PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bohlman HH, Emery SE, Goodfellow DB (1993) Robinson anterior cervical discectomy and arthrodesis for cervical radiculopathy. Long-term follow-up of one hundred and twenty-two patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am 75:1298–1307PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Caspar W, Geisler FH, Pitzen T et al (1998) Anterior cervical plate stabilization in one- and two-level degenerative disease: overtreatment or benefit? J Spinal Disord 11:1–11PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    DiAngelo D, Foley K, Vossel K et al (2000) Anterior cervical plating reverses load transfer through multilevel strut-grafts. Spine 25:783–795PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Duggal N, Pickett GE, Mitsis DK et al (2004) Early clinical and biomechanical results following cervical arthroplasty. Neurosurg Focus 17:E9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Goffin J, Casey A, Kehr P et al (2002) Preliminary clinical experience with the Bryan Cervical Disc Prosthesis. Neurosurgery 51:840–845PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Goffin J, Van Calenbergh V, van Loon J et al (2003) Intermediate follow-up after treatment of degenerative disc disease with the Bryan Cervical Disc Prosthesis: single-level and bi-level. Spine 28:2673–2678PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hilibrand AS, Robbins M (2004) Adjacent segment degeneration and adjacent segment disease: the consequences of spinal fusion? Spine J 4(6 Suppl):190S–194SPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lafuente J, Casey ATH, Petzold A et al (2005) The Bryan cervical disc prosthesis as an alternative to arthrodesis in the treatment cervical spondylosis: 46 consecutive cases. J Bone Joint Surg Br 87(4):508–512PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Silber JS, Anderson DG, Daffner SD et al (2003) Donor site morbidity after anterior iliac crest bone harvest for single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Spine 28:134–139PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mehren C, Suchomel P, Grochulla F et al (2006) Heterotopic ossification in total cervical artificial disc replacement. Spine 31:2802–2806PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pickett GE, Sekhon LH, Sears WR et al (2006) Complications with cervical arthroplasty. J Neurosurg Spine 4:98–105PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Reitman CA, Hipp JA, Nguyen L et al (2004) Changes in segmental intervertebral motion adjacent to cervical arthrodesis: a prospective study. Spine 29:E221–E226PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sasso RC, Smucker JD, Hacker RJ et al (2007) Artificial disc versus fusion: a prospective, randomized study with 2-year follow-up on 99 patients. Spine 32:2933–2940PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Peng-Fei S, Yu-Hua J (2008) Cervical disc prosthesis replacement and interbody fusion: a comparative study. Int Orthop 32(1):103–106PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    St John TA, Vaccaro AR, Sah AP et al (2003) Physical and monetary costs associated with autogenous bone graft harvesting. Am J Orthop 32:18–23PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wigfield C, Gill S, Nelson R et al (2002) Influence of an artificial cervical joint compared with fusion on adjacent-level motion in the treatment of degenerative cervical disease. J Neurosurg 96(1 Suppl):17–21PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Orthopaedic and Trauma DepartmentQilu Hospital of Shandong UniversityJinan, ShandongPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations