Skip to main content
Log in

Comparison of radiographic changes after ACDF versus Bryan disc arthroplasty in single and bi-level cases

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

Abstract

The object of this study is to compare radiographic outcomes of anterior cervical decompression and fusion (ACDF) versus cervical disc replacement using the Bryan Cervical Disc Prosthesis (Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Memphis, TN) in terms of range of motion (ROM), Functional spinal unit (FSU), overall sagittal alignment (C2–C7), anterior intervertebral height (AIH), posterior intervertebral height (PIH) and radiographic changes at the implanted and adjacent levels. The study consisted of 105 patients. A total of 63 Bryan disc were placed in 51 patients. A single level procedure was performed in 39 patients and a two-level procedure in the other 12. Fifty-four patients underwent ACDF, 26 single level cases and 28 double level cases. The Bryan group had a mean follow-up 19 months (12–38). Mean follow-up for the ACDF group was 20 months (12–40 months). All patients were evaluated using static and dynamic cervical spine radiographs as well as MR imaging. All patients underwent anterior cervical discectomy followed by autogenous bone graft with plate (or implantation of a cage) or the Bryan artificial disc prosthesis. Clinical evaluation included the visual analogue scale (VAS), and neck disability index (NDI). Radiographic evaluation included static and dynamic flexion-extension radiographs using the computer software (Infinitt PiviewSTAR 5051) program. ROM, disc space angle, intervertebral height were measured at the operative site and adjacent levels. FSU and overall sagittal alignment (C2–C7) were also measured pre-operatively, postoperatively and at final follow-up. Radiological change was analyzed using χ 2 test (95% confidence interval). Other data were analyzed using the mixed model (SAS enterprises guide 4.1 versions). There was clinical improvement within each group in terms of VAS and NDI scores from pre-op to final follow-up but not significantly between the two groups for both single (VAS p = 0.8371, NDI p = 0.2872) and double (VAS p = 0.2938, NDI p = 0.6753) level surgeries. Overall, ROM and intervertebral height was relatively well maintained during the follow-up in the Bryan group compared to ACDF. Regardless of the number of levels operated on, significant differences were noted for overall ROM of the cervical spine (p < 0.0001) and all other levels except at the upper adjacent level for single level surgeries (p = 0.2872). Statistically significant (p < 0.0001 and p = 0.0172) differences in the trend of intervertebral height measurements between the two groups were noted at all levels except for the AIH of single level surgeries at the upper (p = 0.1264) and lower (p = 0.7598) adjacent levels as well as PIH for double level surgeries at the upper (p = 0.8363) adjacent level. Radiological change was 3.5 times more observed for the ACDF group. Clinical status of both groups, regardless of the number of levels, showed improvement. Although clinical outcomes between the two groups were not significantly different at final follow-up, radiographic parameters, namely ROM and intervertebral heights at the operated site, some adjacent levels as well as FSU and overall sagittal alignment of the cervical spine were relatively well maintained in Bryan group compared to ACDF group. We surmise that to a certain degree, the maintenance of these parameters could contribute to reduce development of adjacent level change. Noteworthy is that radiographic change was 3.5 times more observed for ACDF surgeries. A longer period of evaluation is needed, to see if all these radiographic changes will translate to symptomatic adjacent level disease.

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

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Alund M, Larsson SE (1990) Three dimensional analysis of neck motion. A clinical method. Spine 15:87–91. doi:10.1097/00007632-199002000-00007

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Bartels RH, Donk R, Van der Wilt GJ et al (2006) Design of the PROCON trial: a prospective, randomized multi-center study comparing cervical anterior discectomy without fusion, with fusion or with arthroplasty. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 7:85–91. doi:10.1186/1471-2474-7-85

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Boden SD, Balderston RA, Heller JG et al (2004) An AOA critical issue. Disc replacements: this time will we really cure low-back and neck pain. J Bone Joint Surg Am 86:411–422

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bohlman HH, Emery SE, Goodfellow DB et al (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. Brodke DS, Zdeblick TA (1992) Modified Smith-Robinson procedure for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Spine 17(Suppl):427–430. doi:10.1097/00007632-199210001-00014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Clements DH, O’Leary PF (1990) Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Spine 15:1023–1025. doi:10.1097/00007632-199015100-00008

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Eck JC, Humphreys SC, Lim TH et al (2002) Biomechanical study on the effect of cervical spine fusion on adjacent-level intradiscal pressure and segmental motion. Spine 27:2431–2434. doi:10.1097/00007632-200211150-00003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Emery SE, Bolestra MJ, Banks MA et al (1994) Robinson anterior cervical fusion: comparison of the standard and modified techniques. Spine 19:660–663. doi:10.1097/00007632-199403001-00004

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Fong SY, DuPlessis SJ, Hurlbert J et al (2006) Design limitations of Bryan disc arthroplasty. Spine J 6:233–241. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2006.01.007

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Goffin J, Geusens E, Vantomme N et al (2004) Long-term follow-up after interbody fusion of the cervical spine. J Spinal Disord Tech 17:79–85

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Goffin J, Pointillart V, Lind B et al (2004) Two-year clinical results from a multicenter study of the Bryan cervical disc system. Proceedings of the NASS 19th annual meeting. Spine J 4:3S–199S. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2004.05.085

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Hilibrand A, Carlson G, Palumbo M et al (1999) Radiculopathy and myelopathy at segments adjacent to the site of a previous anterior cervical arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg 81:519–528

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Ishihara MK, Kawaguchi H et al (2004) Adjacent segment disease after anterior cervical interbody fusion. Spine J 4(6):624–628. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2004.04.011

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Kaiser MG, Haid RWJ et al (2002) Anterior cervical plating enhances arthrodesis after discectomy and fusion with cortical allograft. Neurosurgery 50:229–236. doi:10.1097/00006123-200202000-00001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kao FC, Niu CC, Chen LH et al (2005) Maintenance of interbody space in one- and two-level anterior cervical interbody fusion. Clin Orthop Relat Res 430:108–116. doi:10.1097/01.blo.0000142626.90278.9e

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Lafuente J, Casey AT, Petzold A et al (2005) The Bryan cervical disc prosthesis as an alternative to arthrodesis in the treatment of cervical spondylosis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 87:508–512. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.87B4.15436

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Lin EL, Wang JC (2006) Total disk arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 14:705–714

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Matsunaga S, Kabayama S, Yamamoto T et al (1999) Strain on intervertebral discs after anterior cervical decompression and fusion. Spine 24:60–675

    Google Scholar 

  20. Mobbs RJ, Rao P, Chandran NK (2007) Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: analysis of surgical outcome with and without plating. J Clin Neurosci 14(7):639–642. doi:10.1016/j.jocn.2006.04.003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Nabhan A, Ahlhelm F, Pitzen T et al (2007) Disc replacement using Pro-Disc C versus fusion: a prospective randomised and controlled radiographic and clinical study. Eur Spine J 16:423–430. doi:10.1007/s00586-006-0226-5

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Park JB, Cho YS, Riew D (2005) Ossification in patients with an anterior cervical plate. J Bone Joint Surg Am 3:558–565. doi:10.2106/JBJS.C.01555

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Robertson JT, Papadopoulos SM, Traynelis VC (2005) Assessment of adjacent-segment disease in patients treated with cervical fusion or arthroplasty: a prospective 2-year study. J Neurosurg Spine 3:417–423

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Robinson RA, Smith GW (1955) Antero-lateral cervical disc removal and interbody fusion for cervical disc syndrome. Bull Johns Hopkins Hosp 96:223–224 (abstract)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Schwab JS, Diangelo DJ, Foley KT (2006) Motion compensation associated with single-level cervical fusion: where does the lost motion go? Spine 31(21):2439–2448. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000239125.54761.23

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Seo M, Choi D (2008) Adjacent segment disease after fusion for cervical spondylosis: myth or reality? Br J Neurosurg 22(2):95–99. doi:10.1080/02688690701790605

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Shim CS, Lee SH, Park HJ et al (2006) Early clinical and radiologic outcomes of cervical arthroplasty with Bryan cervical disc prosthesis. J Spinal Disord Tech 19:465–470. doi:10.1097/01.bsd.0000211235.76093.6b

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Traynelis VC (2005) The prestige cervical disc. Neurosurg Clin N Am 16:621–628. doi:10.1016/j.nec.2005.06.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Wang JC, McDonough PW et al (2000) Increased fusion rates with cervical plating for two-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Spine 25:41–45. doi:10.1097/00007632-200001010-00009

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Wang JC, McDonough PW et al (2001) Increased fusion rates with cervical plating for three-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Spine 26:643–647. doi:10.1097/00007632-200103150-00015

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. White AA, Panjabi MM (1987) Update on the evaluation of instability of the lower cervical spine. Instr Course Lect 36:513–520

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Williams JL, Allen MB, Harkess JW (1968) Late results of cervical discectomy and interbody fusion: some factors influencing the results. J Bone Joint Surg Am 50:277–286

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Yoon DH, Yi S, Shin HC et al (2006) Clinical and radiological results following cervical arthroplasty. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 148:943–950. doi:10.1007/s00701-006-0805-6

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Seok Woo Kim.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kim, S.W., Limson, M.A., Kim, SB. et al. Comparison of radiographic changes after ACDF versus Bryan disc arthroplasty in single and bi-level cases. Eur Spine J 18, 218–231 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-008-0854-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-008-0854-z

Keywords

Navigation