DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Surgical Outcome of Cervical Arthroplasty Using $Bryan^{(R)}$

  • Kim, Hong-Ki (Department of Neurosurgery, School of Medicine, Ewha Womans University) ;
  • Kim, Myung-Hyun (Department of Neurosurgery, School of Medicine, Ewha Womans University) ;
  • Cho, Do-Sang (Department of Neurosurgery, School of Medicine, Ewha Womans University) ;
  • Kim, Sung-Hak (Department of Neurosurgery, School of Medicine, Ewha Womans University)
  • Published : 2009.12.28

Abstract

Objective : Recently, motion preservation has come to the forefront of emerging technologies in spine surgery. This is the important background information of the emergence of cervical arthroplasty as an alternative to arthrodesis that offers the promise of restoring normal spinal movement and reduces a kinematic strain on adjacent segments. The study was designed to evaluate early surgical outcome and radiological effects of $Bryan^{(R)}$ cervical disc prosthesis. Methods : The authors retrospectively reviewed radiographic and clinical outcomes in 52 patients who received the $Bryan^{(R)}$ Cervical Disc prosthesis, for whom follow-up data were available. Static and dynamic radiographs were measured by computer to determine the angles formed by the endplates of the natural disc preoperatively, those formed by the shells of the implanted prosthesis, the angle of functional spine unit (FSU), and the C2-7 Cobb angle. The range of motion (ROM) was also determined radiographically, whereas clinical outcomes were assessed using Odom's criteria, visual analogue pain scale (VAS) and neck disability index (NDI). Results : A total of 71 $Bryan^{(R)}$ disc were placed in 52 patients. A single-level procedure was performed in 36 patients, a two-level procedure in 13 patients, and a three-level procedure in 3. Radiographic and clinical assessments were made preoperatively. Mean follow-up duration was 29.2 months, ranging from 6 to 36 months. All of the patients were satisfied with the surgical results by Odom's criteria, and showed significant improvement by VAS and NDI score (p < 0.05). The postoperative ROM of the implanted level was preserved without significant difference from preoperative ROM of the operated level (p < 0.05). 97% of patients with a preoperative lordotic sagittal orientation of the FSU were able to maintain lordosis. The overall sagittal alignment of the cervical spine was preserved in 88.5% of cases at the final follow up. Interestingly, preoperatively kyphotic FSU resulted in lordotic FSU in 70% of patients during the late follow up, and preoperatively kyphotic overall cervical alignment resulted in lordosis in 66.6% of the patients postoperatively. Conclusion : Arthroplasty using the $Bryan^{(R)}$ disc seemed to be safe and provided encouraging clinical and radiologic outcome in our study. Although the early results are promising, this is a relatively new approach, therefore long-term follow up studies are required to prove its efficacy and its ability to prevent adjacent segment disease.

Keywords

References

  1. Anderson PA, Sasso RC, Rouleau JP, Carlson CS, Goffin J : The Bryan Cervical Disc : wear properties and early clinical results. Spine J 4 : 303S-309S, 2004 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2004.07.026
  2. Bohlman HH, Emery SE, Goodfellow DB, Jones PK : 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, 1993 https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-199309000-00005
  3. Clements D, O'Leary PF : Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Spine 15 : 1023-1025, 1990 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199015100-00008
  4. Cloward RB : The anterior approach for removal of ruptured cervical disks. J Neurosurg 15 : 602-617, 1958 https://doi.org/10.3171/jns.1958.15.6.0602
  5. Cloward RB : The treatment of ruptured lumbar intervertebral disc by vertebral body fusion : III. Method of use of banked bone. Ann Surg 136 : 987-992, 1952 https://doi.org/10.1097/00000658-195212000-00011
  6. DiAngelo DJ, Roberston JT, Metcalf NH, McVay BJ, Davis RC : Biomechanical testing of an artificial cervical joint and an anterior cervical plate. J Spinal Disord Tech 16 : 314-323, 2003 https://doi.org/10.1097/00024720-200308000-00002
  7. Duggal N, Pickett GE, Mitsis DK, Keller JL : Early clinical and biomechanical results following cervical arthroplasty. Neurosurg Focus 17 : E9, 2004 https://doi.org/10.3171/foc.2004.17.1.2
  8. Eck JC, Humphreys SC, Lim TH, Jeong ST, Kim JG, Hodges SD, et al. : Biomechanical study on the effect of cervical spine fusion on adjacent-level intradiscal pressure and segmental motion. Spine 27 : 2431-2434, 2002 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200211150-00003
  9. Fuller DA, Kirkpatrick JS, Emery SE, Wilber RG, Davy DT : A kinematic study of the cervical spine before and after segmental arthrodesis. Spine 23 : 1649-1656, 1998 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199808010-00006
  10. Goffin J, Geusens E, Vantomme N, Quintens E, Waerzeqqers Y, Depreitere B, et al. : Long-term follow-up after interbody fusion of the cervical spine. J Spinal Disord Tech 17 : 79-85, 2004 https://doi.org/10.1097/00024720-200404000-00001
  11. Goffin J, Van Calenbergh F, van Loon J, Casey A, Kehr P, Liebig K, et al. : Intermediate follow-up after treatment of degenerative disc disease with the Bryan Cervical Disc Prosthesis : single-level and bilevel. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 28 : 2673-2678, 2003
  12. Goffin J, van Loon J, Van Calenbergh F, Plets C : Long-term results after anterior cervical fusion and osteosynthetic stabilization for fractures and/or dislocations of the cervical spine. J Spinal Disord 8 : 500-508; discussion 499,1995
  13. Hilibrand AS, Carlson GD, Palumbo MA, Jones PK, Bohlman HH : Radiculopathy and myelopathy at segments adjacent to the site of a previous anterior cervical arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 81 : 519-528, 1999 https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-199904000-00009
  14. Jho HD, Kim WK, Kim MH : Anterior microforaminotomy for treatment of cervical radiculopathy : part 1 disc-preserving "functional cervical disc surgery". Neurosurgery 51 : S46-S53, 2002
  15. Leung C, Casey AT, Goffin J, Kehr P, Liebig K, Lind B, et al. : Clinical significance of heterotopic ossification in cervical disc replacement : a prospective multicenter clinical trial. Neurosurgery 57 : 759-763, 2005 https://doi.org/10.1093/neurosurgery/57.4.759
  16. Matsunaga S, Kabayama S, Yamamoto T, Yone K, Sakou T, Nakanishi K : Strain on intervertebral discs after anterior cervical decompression and fusion. Spine 24 : 670-675, 1999 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199904010-00011
  17. Park JH, Roh KH, Cho JY, Ra YS, Rhim SC, Noh SW : Comparative analysis of cervical arthroplasty using mobi-C(r) and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion using the solis(r) -Cage. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 44 : 217-221, 2008 https://doi.org/10.3340/jkns.2008.44.4.217
  18. Pickett GE, Sekhon LH, Sears WR, Duggal N : Complications with cervical arthroplasty. J Neurosurg Spine 4 : 98-105, 2006 https://doi.org/10.3171/spi.2006.4.2.98
  19. Smith GW, Robinson RA : The treatment of certain cervical-spine disorders by anterior removal of the intervertebral disc and interbody fusion. J Bone Joint Surg Am 40A : 607-624, 1958
  20. Wigfield C, Gill S, Nelson R, Langdon I, Metcalf N, Robertson J : Influence of an artificial cervical joint compared with fusion on adjacent-level motion in the treatment of degenerative cervical disc disease. J Neurosurg 96 : 17-21, 2002

Cited by

  1. Cervical Radiculopathy due to Cervical Degenerative Diseases : Anatomy, Diagnosis and Treatment vol.48, pp.6, 2009, https://doi.org/10.3340/jkns.2010.48.6.473
  2. Cervical artificial disc replacement versus fusion in the cervical spine: a systematic review comparing multilevel versus single-level surgery vol.3, pp.suppl1, 2012, https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0031-1298605
  3. Five-year results of cervical disc prostheses in the SWISSspine registry vol.22, pp.8, 2009, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-013-2770-0
  4. Multi-level cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) versus single-level CDA for the treatment of cervical disc diseases: a meta-analysis vol.24, pp.1, 2009, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-014-3429-1
  5. Multilevel cervical arthroplasty: current evidence. A systematic review vol.42, pp.2, 2009, https://doi.org/10.3171/2016.10.focus16354
  6. Evidence-based use of arthroplasty in cervical degenerative disc disease vol.43, pp.4, 2009, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-018-04281-y