nach oben

European Spine Journal

Erschienen in:

30.11.2016 | Original Article

10-year follow-up after implantation of the Bryan Cervical Disc Prosthesis

verfasst von: Joost Dejaegher, Joris Walraevens, Johannes van Loon, Frank Van Calenbergh, Philippe Demaerel, Jan Goffin

Erschienen in: European Spine Journal | Ausgabe 4/2017

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

Cervical arthroplasty is being used as an alternative for cervical fusion, but long-term follow-up results have rarely been reported. In this paper, we present 10-year follow-up results after implantation of the Bryan Cervical Disc Prosthesis in a single center.

Methods

89 patients underwent implantation of a single-level Bryan Cervical Disc Prosthesis to treat radiculopathy and/or myelopathy. Clinical (Neurological Success, Neck Disability Index (NDI), Neck- and Arm-Pain, and SF-36) and radiological follow-up was prospectively organized up to 10 years after surgery. Adverse events and second surgeries were recorded and evaluated.

Results

Ten-year follow-up data were available for 72 (81%) patients. Maintenance or improvement of the neurological state was seen in 89% of patients after 10-year follow-up. SF-36 PCS scores improved significantly at all follow-up points. SF-36 MCS improvement was significant at 4 and 6 year, but not at 8- and 10-year follow-up. Significant improvement for NDI, and Neck- and Arm-Pain scores was found for the subgroup of patients in whom these data were available. Mean angular motion of the prosthesis at 10-year follow-up was 8.6°. Mobility of the device, defined as >2° of angular motion, was reached in 81% of patients. During the study period, 21 patients (24%) developed new or recurrent radiculopathy or myelopathy, the majority of these being treated conservatively. Seven patients (8%) required 8 additional spine surgeries to treat persistent or recurrent symptoms. Of these, 2 patients (2%) were reoperated at the index level and at 5 (6%) an adjacent level.

Conclusion

In this study, favorable long-term clinical outcome after implantation of the Bryan Cervical Disc Prosthesis was seen, with the majority of prostheses remaining mobile after 10-year follow-up. However, still 6% of patients required adjacent level surgery.

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

Hilibrand AS, Carlson GD, Palumbo MA et al (1999) Radiculopathy and myelopathy at segments adjacent to the site of a previous anterior cervical arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 81:519–528CrossRefPubMed

Helgeson MD, Bevevino AJ, Hilibrand AS (2013) Update on the evidence for adjacent segment degeneration and disease. Spine J 13:342–351. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2012.12.009 CrossRefPubMed

Matsumoto M, Okada E, Ichihara D et al (2010) Anterior cervical decompression and fusion accelerates adjacent segment degeneration: comparison with asymptomatic volunteers in a ten-year magnetic resonance imaging follow-up study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35:36–43. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181b8a80d CrossRef

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

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. J Bone Jt Surg 93:1684–1692CrossRef

Mummaneni PV, Burkus JK, Haid RW et al (2007) Clinical and radiographic analysis of cervical disc arthroplasty compared with allograft fusion: a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Neurosurg Spine 6:198–209. doi:10.3171/spi.2007.6.3.198 CrossRefPubMed

Burkus JK, Haid RW, Traynelis VC, Mummaneni PV (2010) Long-term clinical and radiographic outcomes of cervical disc replacement with the Prestige disc: results from a prospective randomized controlled clinical trial. J Neurosurg Spine 13:308–318. doi:10.3171/2010.3.SPINE09513 CrossRefPubMed

Burkus JK, Traynelis VC, Haid RW, Mummaneni PV (2014) Clinical and radiographic analysis of an artificial cervical disc: 7-year follow-up from the Prestige prospective randomized controlled clinical trial. J Neurosurg Spine 21:516–528CrossRefPubMed

10.

Murrey D, Janssen M, Delamarter R et al (2009) Results of the prospective, randomized, controlled multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study of the ProDisc-C total disc replacement versus anterior discectomy and fusion for the treatment of 1-level symptomatic cervi. Spine J 9:275–286. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2008.05.006 CrossRefPubMed

11.

Zigler JE, Delamarter R, Murrey D et al (2013) ProDisc-C and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion as surgical treatment for single-level cervical symptomatic degenerative disc disease: five-year results of a Food and Drug Administration study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 38:203–209. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e318278eb38 CrossRef

12.

Hisey M, Bae H, Davis R et al (2014) Multicenter, prospective, randomized, controlled investigational device exemption study comparing mobi-C^® cervical artificial disc to anterior fusion in the treatment of symptomatic cervical degenerative disc disease. Int J Spine Surg. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2011.08.051 PubMedPubMedCentral

13.

Hisey MS, Bae HW, Davis RJ et al (2015) Prospective, randomized comparison of cervical total disk replacement versus anterior cervical fusion. J Spinal Disord Tech 28:237–243CrossRef

14.

Phillips FM, Lee JYB, Geisler FH et al (2013) A prospective, randomized, controlled clinical investigation comparing PCM cervical disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. 2-year results from the US FDA IDE clinical trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 38:E907–E918. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e318296232f CrossRef

15.

Phillips FM, Geisler FH, Gilder KM et al (2015) Long-term outcomes of the US FDA IDE prospective, randomized controlled clinical trial comparing PCM cervical disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 40:674–683. doi:10.1097/BRS.0000000000000869 CrossRef

16.

Tumialán LM, Gluf WM (2011) Progressive vertebral body osteolysis after cervical disc arthroplasty. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 36:E973–E978. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181fd863b CrossRef

17.

Fan H, Wu S, Wu Z et al (2012) Implant failure of Bryan cervical disc due to broken polyurethane sheath: a case report. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 37:E814–E816. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182477d85 CrossRef

18.

Goffin J, Casey A, Kehr P et al (2002) Preliminary clinical experience with the Bryan cervical disc prosthesis. Neurosurgery 51:840–847. doi:10.1227/01.NEU.0000026100.14273.B3 CrossRefPubMed

19.

Goffin J, Van Calenbergh F, 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 (Phila Pa 1976) 28:2673–2678. doi:10.1097/01.BRS.0000099392.90849.AA CrossRef

20.

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 12:261–269. doi:10.3171/2009.9.SPINE09129 CrossRefPubMed

21.

McHorney CA, Ware JEJ, Lu J, Sherbourne C (1994) The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): III. Tests of Data Quality, Scaling Assumptions, and Reliability across Diverse Patient Groups. Med Care 32:40–66CrossRefPubMed

22.

Vernon H, Mior S (1991) The neck disability index: a study of reliability and validity. J Manip Physiol Ther 14:409–415

23.

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 67:679–687. doi:10.1227/01.NEU.0000377039.89725.F3 (discussion 687) CrossRefPubMed

24.

Quan GMY, Vital J-M, Hansen S, Pointillart V (2011) Eight-year clinical and radiological follow-up of the Bryan cervical disc arthroplasty. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 36:639–646. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181dc9b51 CrossRef

25.

Zhang Z, Zhu W, Zhu L, Du Y (2014) Midterm outcomes of total cervical total disc replacement with Bryan prosthesis. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 24(Suppl 1):S275–S281. doi:10.1007/s00590-014-1424-1 CrossRefPubMed

26.

Zhao Y, Zhang Y, Sun Y et al (2016) Application of cervical arthroplasty with Bryan cervical disc. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 41:111–115. doi:10.1097/BRS.0000000000001145 CrossRef

27.

Kim JT, Lee HJ, Choi DY et al (2016) Sequential alignment change of the cervical spine after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion in the lower cervical spine. Eur Spine J 25:2223–2232. doi:10.1007/s00586-016-4401-z CrossRefPubMed

28.

Villavicencio AT, Babuska JM, Ashton A et al (2011) Prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical study evaluating the correlation of clinical outcomes and cervical sagittal alignment. Neurosurgery 68:1309–1316. doi:10.1227/NEU.0b013e31820b51f3 CrossRefPubMed

29.

Kim SW, Shin JH, Arbatin JJ et al (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 17:20–29. doi:10.1007/s00586-007-0459-y CrossRefPubMed

30.

Sasso RC, Metcalf NH, Hipp JA et al (2011) Sagittal Alignment After Bryan Cervical Arthroplasty. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 36:991–996. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182076d70 CrossRef

31.

Walraevens JRR, Liu B, Vander Sloten J et al (2010) Postoperative segmental malalignment after surgery with the Bryan cervical disc prosthesis is it related to the mechanics and design of the prosthesis? J Spinal Disord Tech 23:372–376. doi:10.1097/BSD.0b013e3181bccc69 CrossRefPubMed

32.

Xia X-P, Chen H-L, Cheng H-B (2013) Prevalence of adjacent segment degeneration after spine surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 38:597–608. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e318273a2ea CrossRef

33.

Chung JY, Kim SK, Jung ST, Lee KB (2014) Clinical adjacent-segment pathology after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: results after a minimum of 10-year follow-up. Spine J 14:2290–2298. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2014.01.027 CrossRefPubMed

34.

Wu J-C, Liu L, Wen-Cheng H et al (2012) The incidence of adjacent segment disease requiring surgery after anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion. Neurosurgery 70:594–601. doi:10.1227/NEU.0b013e318232d4f2 CrossRefPubMed

35.

Litrico S, Lonjon N, Riouallon G et al (2014) Adjacent segment disease after anterior cervical interbody fusion. A multicenter retrospective study of 288 patients with long-term follow-up. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 100:S305–S309. doi:10.1016/j.otsr.2014.07.004 CrossRefPubMed

36.

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

37.

Yue W-M, Brodner W, Highland TR (2005) Long-term results after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with allograft and plating: a 5- to 11-year radiologic and clinical follow-up study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30:2138–2144CrossRef

38.

Gore DR, Sepic SB (1998) Anterior Discectomy and Fusion for Painful Cervical Disc Disease. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 23:2047–2051. doi:10.1097/00007632-199810010-00002 CrossRef

Titel: 10-year follow-up after implantation of the Bryan Cervical Disc Prosthesis
verfasst von: Joost Dejaegher
Joris Walraevens
Johannes van Loon
Frank Van Calenbergh
Philippe Demaerel
Jan Goffin
Publikationsdatum: 30.11.2016
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: European Spine Journal / Ausgabe 4/2017
Print ISSN: 0940-6719
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-0932
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4897-2

Arthropedia

Grundlagenwissen der Arthroskopie und Gelenkchirurgie. Erweitert durch Fallbeispiele, Videos und Abbildungen.
» Jetzt entdecken

Neu im Fachgebiet Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Knie-TEP: Kein Vorteil durch antibiotikahaltigen Knochenzement

29.05.2024 Periprothetische Infektionen Nachrichten

Zur Zementierung einer Knie-TEP wird in Deutschland zu über 98% Knochenzement verwendet, der mit einem Antibiotikum beladen ist. Ob er wirklich besser ist als Zement ohne Antibiotikum, kann laut Registerdaten bezweifelt werden.

Häusliche Gewalt in der orthopädischen Notaufnahme oft nicht erkannt

28.05.2024 Häusliche Gewalt Nachrichten

In der Notaufnahme wird die Chance, Opfer von häuslicher Gewalt zu identifizieren, von Orthopäden und Orthopädinnen offenbar zu wenig genutzt. Darauf deuten die Ergebnisse einer Fragebogenstudie an der Sahlgrenska-Universität in Schweden hin.

Fehlerkultur in der Medizin – Offenheit zählt!

28.05.2024 Fehlerkultur Podcast

Darüber reden und aus Fehlern lernen, sollte das Motto in der Medizin lauten. Und zwar nicht nur im Sinne der Patientensicherheit. Eine negative Fehlerkultur kann auch die Behandelnden ernsthaft krank machen, warnt Prof. Dr. Reinhard Strametz. Ein Plädoyer und ein Leitfaden für den offenen Umgang mit kritischen Ereignissen in Medizin und Pflege.

Mehr Frauen im OP – weniger postoperative Komplikationen

21.05.2024 Allgemeine Chirurgie Nachrichten

Ein Frauenanteil von mindestens einem Drittel im ärztlichen Op.-Team war in einer großen retrospektiven Studie aus Kanada mit einer signifikanten Reduktion der postoperativen Morbidität assoziiert.

Update Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Live-Webinar "Urologie und Sexualmedizin in der Praxis"

Springer Medizin

10-year follow-up after implantation of the Bryan Cervical Disc Prosthesis