Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

International Orthopaedics volume 33, pages 1347–1351 (2009)Cite this article

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.

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  1. Anderson PA, Sasso RC, Rouleau JP (2004) The Bryan Cervical Disc: wear properties and early clinical results. Spine J 4(6 Suppl):303S–309S

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):527–536

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bertagnoli R, Yue JJ, Pfeiffer F (2005) Early results after ProDisc-C cervical disc replacement. J Neurosurg Spine 2:403–410

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 75:1298–1307

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 11:1–11

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. DiAngelo D, Foley K, Vossel K et al (2000) Anterior cervical plating reverses load transfer through multilevel strut-grafts. Spine 25:783–795

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Duggal N, Pickett GE, Mitsis DK et al (2004) Early clinical and biomechanical results following cervical arthroplasty. Neurosurg Focus 17:E9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Goffin J, Casey A, Kehr P et al (2002) Preliminary clinical experience with the Bryan Cervical Disc Prosthesis. Neurosurgery 51:840–845

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 28:2673–2678

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Hilibrand AS, Robbins M (2004) Adjacent segment degeneration and adjacent segment disease: the consequences of spinal fusion? Spine J 4(6 Suppl):190S–194S

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):508–512

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 28:134–139

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Mehren C, Suchomel P, Grochulla F et al (2006) Heterotopic ossification in total cervical artificial disc replacement. Spine 31:2802–2806

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Pickett GE, Sekhon LH, Sears WR et al (2006) Complications with cervical arthroplasty. J Neurosurg Spine 4:98–105

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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–E226

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 32:2933–2940

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Peng-Fei S, Yu-Hua J (2008) Cervical disc prosthesis replacement and interbody fusion: a comparative study. Int Orthop 32(1):103–106

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. St John TA, Vaccaro AR, Sah AP et al (2003) Physical and monetary costs associated with autogenous bone graft harvesting. Am J Orthop 32:18–23

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):17–21

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Orthopaedic and Trauma Department, Qilu Hospital of Shandong University, No. 107 Wenhua Xi Road, Jinan, Shandong, 250012, People’s Republic of China

    Lei Cheng, Lin Nie, Li Zhang & Yong Hou

Authors
  1. Lei Cheng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lin Nie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Li Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yong Hou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lei Cheng.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cheng, L., Nie, L., Zhang, L. et al. Fusion versus Bryan Cervical Disc in two-level cervical disc disease: a prospective, randomised study. International Orthopaedics (SICOT) 33, 1347–1351 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-008-0655-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-008-0655-3

Keywords

search

Navigation