Top

Published in:

01-10-2009 | Original Paper

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

Authors: Lei Cheng, Lin Nie, Li Zhang, Yong Hou

Published in: International Orthopaedics | Issue 5/2009

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.

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

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):527–536PubMedCrossRef

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

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 75:1298–1307PubMed

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 11:1–11PubMedCrossRef

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

Duggal N, Pickett GE, Mitsis DK et al (2004) Early clinical and biomechanical results following cervical arthroplasty. Neurosurg Focus 17:E9PubMedCrossRef

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

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 28:2673–2678PubMedCrossRef

10.

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

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):508–512PubMedCrossRef

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 28:134–139PubMedCrossRef

13.

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

14.

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

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–E226PubMedCrossRef

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 32:2933–2940PubMedCrossRef

17.

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

18.

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

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):17–21PubMed

Title: Fusion versus Bryan Cervical Disc in two-level cervical disc disease: a prospective, randomised study
Authors: Lei Cheng
Lin Nie
Li Zhang
Yong Hou
Publication date: 01-10-2009
Publisher: Springer-Verlag
Published in: International Orthopaedics / Issue 5/2009
Print ISSN: 0341-2695
Electronic ISSN: 1432-5195
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-008-0655-3

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

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

Abstract

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 5/2009

Reimplantation of the resected tumour-bearing segment after recycling using liquid nitrogen for osteosarcoma

Fluoroscopically-guided indirect posterior reduction and fixation of thoracolumbar burst fractures without fusion

Comments on Pretell et al: Distal fascia lata lengthening: an alternative surgical technique for recalcitrant trochanteric bursitis

Prevalence of chest trauma, associated injuries and mortality: a level I trauma centre experience

Endoprosthetic reconstruction using total femoral custom mega prosthesis in malignant bone tumours

The effect of tourniquet use on hidden blood loss in total knee arthroplasty