Top

Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery

Published in:

01-03-2015 | Orthopaedic Surgery

Comparison of Bryan versus ProDisc-C total disk replacement as treatment for single-level cervical symptomatic degenerative disk disease

Authors: Zhenxiang Zhang, Lei Jiao, Wei Zhu, Yaqing Du, Wenjie Zhang

Published in: Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery | Issue 3/2015

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this retrospective trial was to compare the role of the Bryan with ProDisc-C total disk replacement (TDR).

Materials and methods

Data were collected before surgery and 1, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after surgery. Disability and pain were assessed using the Neck Disability Index (NDI) and the Visual Analog Scale of the neck and of the arm pain. SF-36 outcome measures were obtained including the physical component score as well as the mental component score. Functional spinal unit (FSU) was examined on lateral radiographs at 24-month follow-up. Occurrences of heterotopic ossification (HO) were detected from 24-month follow-up X-rays.

Results

The mean NDI, mean VAS, and mean SF-36 scores were not statistically different between groups before surgery and at 24-month follow-up. At 24 months: Bryan 49 and ProDisc-C 53 (P > 0.05). The FSU angle increased slightly for the Bryan group (from 0.7 to 0.8°, P > 0.05), while for the ProDisc-C group, it increased significantly (from 0.5 to 2.3°, P < 0.05). There were 2 additional operations in this series: 1 in the Bryan group and 1 in the ProDisc-C group. There were no intraoperative complications, no vascular or neurologic complications, no spontaneous fusions, and no device failures or explantation. No significant difference was noted in terms of HO formation.

Conclusion

Both the Bryan and the ProDisc-C TDR resulted in satisfactory clinical outcome. Moreover, Bryan TDR can maintain the lordosis of FSU, whereas ProDisc-C TDR can restore the lordosis of FSU, whether or not this radiographic evidence leads to more favorable clinical outcome for ProDisc-C TDR requires further investigation.

Lundine KM, Davis G, Rogers M, Staples M, Quan G (2014) Prevalence of adjacent segment disc degeneration in patients undergoing anterior cervical discectomy and fusion based on pre-operative MRI findings. J Clin Neurosci 21(1):82–85CrossRefPubMed

Li H, Min J, Zhang Q, Yuan Y, Wang D (2013) Dynamic cervical plate versus static cervical plate in the anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a systematic review. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 23(1):41–46CrossRef

Maroon JC, Bost JW, Petraglia AL (2013) Outcomes after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion in professional athletes. Neurosurgery 73(1):103–112CrossRefPubMed

Vital JM, Boissière L (2014) Total disc replacement. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 100(1):1–14CrossRef

Demetriades AK, Ringel F, Meyer B (2014) Cervical disc arthroplasty: a critical review and appraisal of the latest available evidence. Adv Tech Stand Neurosurg 41:107–129PubMed

Suchomel P, Barsa P (2013) Cervical total disc replacement C5/6. Eur Spine J 22(6):1451–1452CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

Park SB, Kim KJ, Jin YJ, Kim HJ, Jahng TA, Chung CK (2013) X-ray based kinematic analysis of cervical spine according to prosthesis designs: analysis of the Mobi C, Bryan, PCM, and Prestige LP. J Spinal Disord Tech (Epub ahead of print)

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):338–346PubMed

Sasso RC, Smucker JD, Hacker RJ, Heller JG (2007) Clinical outcomes of BRYAN cervical disc arthroplasty: a prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter trial with 24-month follow-up. J Spinal Disord Tech 20(7):481–491CrossRefPubMed

10.

Kim SW, Shin JH, Arbatin JJ, Park MS, Chung YK, McAfee PC (2008) 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(1):20–29CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

11.

Anderson PA, Sasso RC, Riew KD (2008) Comparison of adverse events between the Bryan artificial cervical disc and anterior cervical arthrodesis. Spine 33(12):1305–1312CrossRefPubMed

12.

Cheng L, Nie L, Zhang L, Hou Y (2009) Fusion versus Bryan Cervical Disc in two-level cervical disc disease: a prospective, randomised study. Int Orthop 33(5):1347–1351CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

13.

Wenger M, Pv Hoonacker, Zachee B (2009) Bryan cervical disc prostheses: preservation of function over time. J Clin Neurosci 16(2):220–225CrossRefPubMed

14.

Kim SW, Limson MA, Kim SB, Arbatin JJ (2009) Comparison of radiographic changes after ACDF versus Bryan disc arthroplasty in single and bi-level cases. Eur Spine J 18(2):218–231CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

15.

Buchowski JM, Anderson PA, Sekhon L, Riew KD (2009) Cervical disc arthroplasty compared with arthrodesis for the treatment of myelopathy. Surgical technique. J Bone Joint Surg Am 91(2):223–232PubMed

16.

Zhao YB, Sun Y, Zhou FF, Liu ZJ (2013) Cervical disc arthroplasty with ProDisc-C artificial disc: 5-year radiographic follow-up results. Chin Med J (Engl) 126(20):3809–3811

17.

Jaumard NV, Bauman JA, Guarino BB, Gokhale AJ (2013) ProDisc cervical arthroplasty does not alter facet joint contact pressure during lateral bending or axial torsion. Spine 38(2):84–93CrossRef

18.

Delamarter RB, Zigler J (2013) Five-year reoperation rates, cervical total disc replacement versus fusion, results of a prospective randomized clinical trial. Spine 38(9):711–717CrossRefPubMed

19.

Pitzen T, Kettler A, Drumm J, Nabhan A, Steudel WI (2007) Cervical spine disc prosthesis: radiographic, biomechanical and morphological post mortal findings 12 weeks after implantation. A retrieval example. Eur Spine J 16(7):1015–1020CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

20.

Bertagnoli R, Yue JJ, Pfeiffer F, Fenk-Mayer A (2005) Early results after ProDisc-C cervical disc replacement. J Neurosurg Spine 2(4):403–410CrossRefPubMed

21.

McAfee PC, Cunningham BW, Devine J et al (2003) Classification of heterotopic ossification (HO) in artificial disk replacement. J Spinal Disord Tech 16:384–389CrossRefPubMed

22.

Zigler J, Delamarter R, Spivak JM, Linovitz RJ (2007) Results of the prospective, randomized, multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study of the ProDisc-L total disc replacement versus circumferential fusion for the treatment of 1-level degenerative disc disease. Spine 32(11):1155–1162CrossRefPubMed

23.

Nabhan A, Ahlhelm F, Shariat K, Pitzen T, Steimer O, Steudel WI, Pape D (2007) The ProDisc-C prosthesis: clinical and radiological experience 1 year after surgery. Spine 32(18):1935–1941CrossRefPubMed

24.

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 32(26):2933–2940CrossRefPubMed

25.

Goffin J, Casey A, Kehr P (2002) Preliminary clinical experience with the Bryan cervical disc prosthesis. Neurosurgery 51:840–847PubMed

26.

Pracyk JB, Traynelis VC (2005) Treatment of the painful motion segment: cervical arthroplasty. Spine 30(16):23–32CrossRef

27.

Chi JH, Ames CP, Tay B (2005) General considerations for cervical arthroplasty with technique for ProDisc-C. Neurosurg Clin N Am 16(4):609–619CrossRefPubMed

28.

Ryu KS, Park CK, Jun SC, Huh HY (2010) Radiological changes of the operated and adjacent segments following cervical arthroplasty after a minimum 24-month follow-up: comparison between the Bryan and Prodisc-C devices. J Neurosurg Spine 13(3):299–307CrossRefPubMed

29.

Kang H, Park P, La Marca F, Hollister SJ, Lin CY (2010) Analysis of load sharing on uncovertebral and facet joints at the C5-6 level with implantation of the Bryan, Prestige LP, or ProDisc-C cervical disc prosthesis: an in vivo image-based finite element study. Neurosurg Focus 28(6):E9CrossRefPubMed

30.

Sekhon LH, Duggal N, Lynch JJ, Haid RW, Heller JG, Riew KD, Seex K, Anderson PA (2007) Magnetic resonance imaging clarity of the Bryan, Prodisc-C, Prestige LP, and PCM cervical arthroplasty devices. Spine 32(6):673–680CrossRefPubMed

Title: Comparison of Bryan versus ProDisc-C total disk replacement as treatment for single-level cervical symptomatic degenerative disk disease
Authors: Zhenxiang Zhang
Lei Jiao
Wei Zhu
Yaqing Du
Wenjie Zhang
Publication date: 01-03-2015
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery / Issue 3/2015
Print ISSN: 0936-8051
Electronic ISSN: 1434-3916
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-014-2149-7

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Comparison of Bryan versus ProDisc-C total disk replacement as treatment for single-level cervical symptomatic degenerative disk disease

Abstract

Purpose

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusion

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 3/2015

The effect of flexion balance on functional outcomes in cruciate-retaining total knee arthroplasty

A special instrument to accurately and safely remove the femoral head

Comparison of novel intramedullary nailing with mini-invasive plating in surgical fixation of displaced midshaft clavicle fractures

Hospital readmission after hip fracture

Structural and clinical integrity of the rotator cuff in athletes after arthroscopic Bankart repair using the three-portal technique

What factors influence follow-up in orthopedic trauma surgery?