Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Effects of a cervical disc prosthesis on maintaining sagittal alignment of the functional spinal unit and overall sagittal balance of the cervical spine

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The object of this study is to review the early clinical results and radiographic outcomes following insertion of the Bryan Cervical Disc Prosthesis (Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Memphis, TN), together with its effect on maintaining sagittal alignment of the functional spinal unit (FSU) and overall sagittal balance of the cervical spine for the treatment of single-level or two-level symptomatic disc disease. Forty-seven patients with symptomatic single or two-level cervical disc disease who received the Bryan Cervical Artificial Disc were reviewed prospectively. A total of 55 Bryan disc were placed in 47 patients. A single-level procedure was performed in 39 patients and a two-level procedure in the other eight. Radiographic and clinical assessments were made preoperatively and at 1.5, 3, 6, 9, 12, and 18 and up to 33 months postoperatively. Mean follow-up duration was 24 months, ranging from 13 to 33 months. Periods were categorized as early follow up (1.5–3 months) and late follow up (6–33 months). The visual analogue scale (VAS), neck disability index(NDI), Odom’s criteria were used to assess pain and clinical outcomes. Static and dynamic radiographs were measured by hand and computer to determine the range of motion (ROM), the angle of the functional segmental unit (FSU), and the overall cervical alignment (C2–7 Cobb angle). With all of these data, we evaluated the change of the preoperative lordosis (or kyphosis) of the FSU and Overall sagittal balance of the cervical spine during the follow-up period. There was a statistically significant improvement in the VAS score from 7.0 ± 2.6 to 2.0 ± 1.5 (paired-t test, P = 0.000), and in the NDI from 21.5 ± 5.5 to 4.5 ± 3.9 (paired-t test P = 0.000). All of the patients were satisfied with the surgical results by Odom’s criteria. The postoperative ROM of the implanted level was preserved without significant difference from preoperative ROM of the operated level. Only 36% of patients with a preoperative lordotic sagittal orientation of the FSU were able to maintain lordosis following surgery. However, the overall sagittal alignment of the cervical spine was preserved in 86% of cases at the final follow up. Interestingly, preoperatively kyphotic FSU resulted in lordotic FSU in 13% of patients during the late follow-up, and preoperatively kyphotic overall cervical alignment resulted in lordosis in 33% of the patients postoperatively. Clinical results are encouraging, with significant improvement seen in the Bryan Cervical Artificial disc. The Bryan disc preserves motion of the FSU. Although the preoperative lordosis (or kyphosis) of the FSU could not always be maintained during the follow-up period, the overall sagittal balance of the cervical spine was usually preserved.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Reference

  1. Abd-Alrahman N, Dokmak AS, Abou-Madawi A (1999) Anterior cervical discectomy (ACD) versus anterior cervical fusion (ACF). Clinical and radiological outcome study. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 141:1089–1092

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Baba H, Furusawa N, Imura S, Kawahara N, Tsuchiya H, Tomita K (1993) Late radiographic findings after anterior cervical fusion for spondylotic myeloradiculopathy Spine 18:2167–2173

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Bryan VE Jr (2002) Cervical motion segment replacement. Eur Spine J 11(Suppl)2:S92–S97

    Google Scholar 

  4. Cherubino P, Benazzo F, Borromeo U, Perle S (1990) Degenerative arthritis of the adjacent spinal joints following anterior cervical spinal fusion: clinicoradiologic and statistical correlations Ital J Orthop Traumatol 16:533–543

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Clements DH, O’Leary PF (1990) Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion Spine 15:1023–1025

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Cloward RB (1952) The treatment of ruptured lumbar intervertebral disc by vertebral body fusion. III. Method of use of banked bone. Ann Surg 136:987–992

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Cloward RB (1958) The anterior approach for removal of ruptured cervical disks. J Neurosurg 15:602–617

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Coric D, Finger F, Boltes P (2006) Prospective randomized controlled study of the Bryan Cervical Disc: early clinical results from a single investigational site. J Neurosurg Spine 4:31–35

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. DiAngelo DJ, Roberston JT, Metcalf NH, McVay BJ, Davis RC (2003) Biomechanical testing of an artificial cervical joint and an anterior cervical plate. J Spinal Disord Tech 16:314–323

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Dohler JR, Kahn MR, Hughes SP (1985) Instability of the cervical spine after anterior interbody fusion. A study on its incidence and clinical significance in 21 patients. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 104:247–250

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Eck JC, Humphreys SC, Lim TH, Jeong ST, Kim JG, Hodges SD, An HS (2002) Biomechanical study on the effect of cervical spine fusion on adjacent-level intradiscal pressure and segmental motion. Spine 27:2431–2434

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Goffin J, Casey A, Kehr P, Liebig K, Lind B, Logroscino C, Pointillart V, Van Calenbergh F, van Loon J (2002) Preliminary clinical experience with the Bryan Cervical Disc Prosthesis. Neurosurgery 51:840–845; discussion 845–847

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Goffin J, Van Calenbergh F, van Loon J, Casey A, Kehr P, Liebig K, Lind B, Logroscino C, Sgrambiglia R, Pointillart V (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 

  14. Goffin J, van Loon J, Van Calenbergh F, Plets C (1995) Long-term results after anterior cervical fusion and osteosynthetic stabilization for fractures and/or dislocations of the cervical spine. J Spinal Disord 8:500–508; discussion 499

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Gore DR, Sepic SB (1984) Anterior cervical fusion for degenerated or protruded discs. A review of one hundred forty-six patients Spine 9:667–671

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Hilibrand AS, Carlson G.D, Palumbo MA, Jones PK, Bohlman HH (1999) Radiculopathy and myelopathy at segments adjacent to the site of a previous anterior cervical arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 81:519–528

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Johnson JP, Lauryssen C, Cambron HO, Pashman R, Regan JJ, Anand N, Bray R (2004) Sagittal alignment and the Bryan cervical artificial disc Neurosurg Focus 17:E14

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Katsuura A, Hukuda S, Saruhashi Y, Mori K (2001) Kyphotic malalignment after anterior cervical fusion is one of the factors promoting the degenerative process in adjacent intervertebral levels Eur Spine J 10:320–324

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Mehren C, Suchomel P, Grochulla F, Barsa P, Sourkova P, Hradil J, Korge A, Mayer HM (2006) Heterotopic ossification in total cervical artificial disc replacement Spine 31:2802–2806

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Odom GL, Finney W, Woodhall B (1958) Cervical disk lesions J Am Med Assoc 166:23–28

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Pickett GE, Rouleau JP, Duggal N (2005) Kinematic analysis of the cervical spine following implantation of an artificial cervical disc Spine 30:1949–1954

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Pickett GE, Sekhon LH, Sears WR, Duggal N (2006) Complications with cervical arthroplasty J Neurosurg Spine 4:98–105

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Pospiech J, Stolke D, Wilke HJ, Claes LE (1999) Intradiscal pressure recordings in the cervical spine Neurosurgery 44:379–384; discussion 384–375

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Smith GW, Robinson RA (1958) The treatment of certain cervical-spine disorders by anterior removal of the intervertebral disc and interbody fusion J Bone Joint Surg Am 40-A:607–624

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Wang Y, Xiao SH, Lu N, Zhang XS (2004) [Clinical report of cervical arthroplasty in management of spondylotic myelopathy.] Zhonghua Wai Ke Za Zhi 42:1333–1337

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Weinhoffer SL, Guyer RD, Herbert M, Griffith SL (1995) Intradiscal pressure measurements above an instrumented fusion. A cadaveric study. Spine 20:526–531

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Wigfield CC, Skrzypiec D, Jackowski A, Adams MA (2003) Internal stress distribution in cervical intervertebral discs: the influence of an artificial cervical joint and simulated anterior interbody fusion J Spinal Disord Tech 16:441–449

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Wu W, Thuomas KA, Hedlund R, Leszniewski W, Vavruch L (1996) Degenerative changes following anterior cervical discectomy and fusion evaluated by fast spin-echo MR imaging Acta Radiol 37:614–617

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. International Spine Center, Hangang Sacred Heart Hospital, College of Medicine, Hallym University, Seoul, South Korea

    Seok Woo Kim, Jae Hyuk Shin, Jose Joefrey Arbatin, Moon Soo Park & Yung Khee Chung

  2. Scoliosis and Spine Center, St. Joseph Hospital O’Dea Medical Arts Building, Suite 104, 7505 Osler Drive, Towson, MD, 21204, USA

    Paul C. McAfee

  3. 94-200 Yongdeungpo-Dong, Yongdeungpo-Gu, Seoul, 150-719, South Korea

    Seok Woo Kim

Authors
  1. Seok Woo Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jae Hyuk Shin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jose Joefrey Arbatin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Moon Soo Park
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Yung Khee Chung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Paul C. McAfee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Seok Woo Kim.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kim, S.W., Shin, J.H., Arbatin, J.J. et al. Effects of a cervical disc prosthesis on maintaining sagittal alignment of the functional spinal unit and overall sagittal balance of the cervical spine. Eur Spine J 17, 20–29 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-007-0459-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-007-0459-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation