Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Clinical and radiological analysis of Bryan cervical disc arthroplasty: eight-year follow-up results compared with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Orthopaedics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Bryan cervical disc arthroplasty has been reported with satisfactory short- and medium-term clinical results. However, the long-term clinical and radiographic outcomes are seldom reported. The purpose of this study was to compare the eight-year follow-up results in patients who underwent Bryan disc arthroplasty with patients received ACDF, and assess the incidence of heterotopic ossification (HO) and its effect on clinical outcome and mobility of the device.

Methods

Thirty-one patients underwent Bryan disc arthroplasty, and 35 patients underwent ACDF were included in the study. The Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) scores, neck disability index (NDI), visual analogue scale (VAS) of neck and arm pain, and the radiographs were used to evaluate the outcomes. The heterotopic ossification (HO) was determined by CT scan and was classified into three subgroups to compare the related effect. Adjacent segment degeneration (ASD) was also observed.

Results

At final follow-up, there were no significant differences in JOA scores between two groups, but the improvement in NDI and neck or arm VAS were significantly greater in the Bryan disc cohort. The range of motion at the index level was 7.0° in Bryan group, while 100 % bone fusion were achieved in ACDF group. HO was observed in 18 (51.4 %) levels. There were more restricted movement of the prosthesis and slight higher rate of axial pain in patients with severe-HO (grade III and IV). Fourteen (28.6 %) levels developed ASD in Bryan group, which was significantly lower than that (58.6 %) in ACDF group.

Conclusions

At eight year follow-up, the clinical and radiographic outcomes of Bryan cervical disc arthroplasty compared favorably to those of ACDF. It avoided accelerated adjacent segment degeneration by preserving motion. However, severe HO restricted the ROM of the index levels and maybe associated with post-operative axial pain.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Yang YC, Nie L, Cheng L, Hou Y (2009) Clinical and radiographic reports following cervical arthroplasty: a 24-month follow-up. Int Orthop 33(4):1037–1042

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 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 

  3. Anderson PA, Rouleau JP (2004) Intervertebral disc arthroplasty. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 29(23):2779–2786

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Sasso RC, Smucker JD, Hacker RJ, Heller JG (2007) Artificial disc versus fusion: a prospective, randomized study with 2-year follow-up on 99 Patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32(26):2933–2940, discussion 2941–2942

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 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(3):840–845, discussion 845–847

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Zhang X, Zhang X, Chen C et al (2012) Randomized, controlled, multicenter, clinical trial comparing BRYAN cervical disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical decompression and fusion in China. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 37(6):433–438

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Ding C, Hong Y, Liu H, Shi R, Song Y, Li T (2013) Comparison of cervical disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Acta Orthop Belg 79(3):338–346

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Garrido BJ, Taha TA, Sasso RC (2010) Clinical outcomes of Bryan cervical disc arthroplasty a prospective, randomized, controlled, single site trial with48-month follow-up. J Spinal Disord Tech 23(6):367–371

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Muheremu A, Niu X, Wu Z, Muhanmode Y, Tian W (2015) Comparison of the short- and long-term treatment effect of cervical disk replacement and anterior cervical disk fusion: a meta-analysis. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 25(Suppl 1):S87–S100

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Sasso RC, Anderson PA, Riew KD, Heller JG (2011) Results of cervical arthroplasty compared with anterior discectomy and fusion: four-year clinical outcomes in a prospective, randomized controlled trial. Orthopedics 34(11):889

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Goffin J, van Loon J, Van Calenbergh F, Lipscomb B (2010) A clinical analysis of 4- and 6-year follow-up results after cervical disc replacement surgery using the Bryan cervical disc prosthesis. J Neurosurg Spine 12(3):261–269

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Walraevens J, Demaerel P, Suetens P et al (2010) Longitudinal prospective long-term radiographic follow-up after treatment of single-level cervical disk disease with the Bryan Cervical Disc. Neurosurgery 67(3):679–687, discussion 687

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kim SW, Limson MA, Kim SB et al (2009) Comparison of radiographic changes after anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion versus Bryan disc arthroplasty in single and bi-level case. Eur Spine J 18(2):218–231

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Sun Y, Zhao YB, Pan SF, Zhou FF, Chen ZQ, Liu ZJ (2012) Comparison of adjacent segment degeneration five years after singlelevel cervical fusion and cervical arthroplasty: a retrospective controlled study. Chin Med J (Engl) 125:3939–3941

    Google Scholar 

  15. White AA 3rd, Panjabi MM (1978) The basic kinematics of the human spine. A review of past and current knowledge. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 3:12–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. McAfee PC, Cunningham BW, Devine J, Williams E, Yu-Yahiro J (2003) Classification of heterotopic ossification (HO) in artificial disk replacement. J Spinal Disord Tech 16(4):384–389

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Heller JG, Sasso RC, Papadopoulos SM et al (2009) Comparison of BRYAN cervical disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical decompression and fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34(2):101–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Quan GM, Vital JM, Hansen S, Pointillart V (2011) Eight-year clinical and radiological follow-up of the Bryan cervical disc arthroplasty. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 36(8):639–646

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Jin YJ, Park SB, Kim MJ, Kim KJ, Kim HJ (2013) An analysis of heterotopic ossification in cervical disc arthroplasty: a novel morphologic classification of an ossified mass. Spine J 13(4):408–420

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Tu TH, Wu JC, Huang WC, Guo WY, Wu CL, Shih YH, Cheng H (2011) Heterotopic ossification after cervical total disc replacement: determination by CT and effects on clinical outcomes. J Neurosurg Spine 14(4):457–465

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Suchomel P, Jurák L, Benes V 3rd, Brabec R, Bradác O, Elgawhary S (2010) Clinical results and development of heterotopic ossification in total cervical disc replacement during a 4-year follow-up. Eur Spine J 19(2):307–315

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Neal B (2003) Effects of heterotopic bone formation on outcome after hip arthroplasty. ANZ J Surg 73:422–426

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Rama KR, Vendittoli PA, Ganapathi M et al (2009) Heterotopic ossification after surface arthroplasty and total hip arthroplasty: a randomized study. J Arthroplasty 24:256–262

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Nabhan, Ishak B, Steudel WI, Ramadhan S, Steimer O (2011) Assessment of adjacent-segment mobility after cervical disc replacement versus fusion: RCT with 1 year’s results. Eur Spine J 20(6):934–941

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Eck JC, Humphreys SC, Lim TH et al (2002) Biomechanical study on the effect of cervical spine fusion on adjacent-leve intradiscal pressure and segmental motion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 27(22):2431–2434

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Dr. Lingde Kong for assistance with preparation of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. From the Department of Spine Surgery, and The Key Laboratory of Orthopedic Biomechanics of Hebei Province, The Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang, China

    Tao Lei, Yaming Liu, Hui Wang, Jiaxin Xu, Qinghua Ma, Linfeng Wang & Yong Shen

  2. Department of Spine Surgery, Third Hospital of HeBei Medical University, 139 Ziqiang Rd, Shijiazhuang, Hebei Province, 050051, China

    Yong Shen

Authors
  1. Tao Lei
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yaming Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hui Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jiaxin Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Qinghua Ma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Linfeng Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Yong Shen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yong Shen.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no funding or conflicts of interest to disclose.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lei, T., Liu, Y., Wang, H. et al. Clinical and radiological analysis of Bryan cervical disc arthroplasty: eight-year follow-up results compared with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. International Orthopaedics (SICOT) 40, 1197–1203 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-015-3098-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-015-3098-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation