Comparison of BRYAN cervical disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical decompression and fusion: Clinical and radiographic results of a randomized, controlled, clinical trial

Spine

Volumn 34, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 101-107

  Heller, John G ^a,j   Sasso, Rick C ^b   Papadopoulos, Stephen M ^c   Anderson, Paul A ^d   Fessler, Richard G ^e   Hacker, Robert J ^f   Coric, Domagoj ^g   Cauthen, Joseph C ^h   Riew, Daniel K ⁱ  

^a EMORY UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b INDIANA UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c Barrow Neurosurgical Associates   (United States)

^d University of Wisconsin Health   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO   (United States)

^f Oregon Neurosurgery Specialists   (United States)

^g CAROLINA NEUROSURGERY AND SPINE ASSOCIATES   (United States)

^h Neurosurgical and Spine Associates   (United States)

ⁱ BARNES JEWISH HOSPITAL   (United States)

^j NONE   (United States)

more..

Author keywords

Arthroplasty; Cervical spine; Degenerative disc disease; Fusion; Spinal instrumentation

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTHROPLASTY; ARTICLE; CERVICAL SPINE; CERVICAL SPINE RADIOGRAPHY; CERVICOBRACHIAL NEURALGIA; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; INTERVERTEBRAL DISKECTOMY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NECK PAIN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROGNOSIS; PROSTHESIS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; RANGE OF MOTION; SCORING SYSTEM; SPINAL CORD DECOMPRESSION; SPINAL CORD DISEASE; SPINE FUSION; TREATMENT OUTCOME; BIOASSAY; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DECOMPRESSION SURGERY; INSTRUMENTATION; INTERVERTEBRAL DISK; INTERVERTEBRAL DISK HERNIA; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; MULTICENTER STUDY; NEUROSURGERY; PATHOLOGY; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATION; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; PROSTHESES AND ORTHOSES; RADIOGRAPHY; STATISTICS;

ADULT; AGED; ARTHROPLASTY; CERVICAL VERTEBRAE; DECOMPRESSION, SURGICAL; DISKECTOMY; ENDPOINT DETERMINATION; FEMALE; HUMANS; INTERVERTEBRAL DISK; INTERVERTEBRAL DISK DISPLACEMENT; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEUROSURGICAL PROCEDURES; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; PROSTHESES AND IMPLANTS; SPINAL FUSION; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 64049096625     PISSN: 03622436     EISSN: 15281159     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31818ee263     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Goffin J, Geusens E, Vantomme N, et al. Long-term follow-up after interbody fusion of the cervical spine. J Spinal Disord Tech 2004;17:79-85.
2. Hilibrand AS, Carlson GD, Palumbo MA, et al. Radiculopathy and myelopathy at segments adjacent to the site of a previous anterior cervical arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1999;81:519-28.
3. Jensen WK, Anderson PA, Nel L, et al. Bone ingrowth in retrieved Bryan cervical disc prostheses. Spine 2005;30:2497-2502.
4. Anderson PA, Sasso RC, Rouleau JP, et al. The Bryan Cervical Disc: wear properties and early clinical results. Spine J 2004;4:303S-9S.
5. Anderson PA, Rouleau JP, Bryan VE, et al. Wear analysis of the Bryan cervical disc prosthesis. Spine 2003;28:S186-94.
6. Goffin J, Casey A, Kehr P, et al. Preliminary clinical experience with the Bryan cervical disc prosthesis. Neurosurgery 2002;51:840-7.
7. Goffin J, van Calenbergh F, van Loon J, et al. Intermediate follow-up after treatment of degenerative disc disease with the Bryan cervical disc prosthesis: single-level and bi-level. Spine 2003;28:2673-8.
8. Goffin J, van Loon J, van Calenbergh F. Cervical arthroplasty with the Bryan Disc: 4-year results. Spine J 2006;6:62S-3S. [Abstract].
9. Vernon H, Mior S. The Neck Disability Index: a study of reliability and validity. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1991;14:409-15.
10. Westaway M, Stratford P, Binkley J. The patient-specific functional scale: validation of its use in persons with neck dysfunction. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 1998;27:331-8.
11. McHorney CA, Ware JE Jr, Lu JF, et al. 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 1994;32:40-66.
12. World Health Organization. Toxic effects. WHO Handbook for reporting results of cancer treatment. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 1979:14-22. Offset publication no. 48.
13. Puschak TP, Anderson PA, Sasso R. Measuring cervical arthroplasty outcomes: comparison of SF-36 improvements in cervical disc replacement, cervical fusion, TKA and THA. Spine J 2007;7:49S. [Abstract].
14. Duggal N, Pickett GE, Mitsis DK, et al. Early clinical and biomechanical results following cervical arthroplasty. Neurosurg Focus 2004:E9.
15. Sekhon LH. Cervical arthroplasty in the management of spondylotic myelopathy: 18-month results. Neurosurg Focus 2004;17:E12.
16. Coric D, Finger F, Boltes P. Prospective randomized controlled study of the Bryan Cervical Disc: early clinical results from a single investigational site. J Neurosurg Spine 2006;4:31-5.
17. Hacker RJ. Cervical disc arthroplasty: a controlled randomized prospective study with intermediate follow-up results. Invited submission from the joint section meeting on disorders of the spine and peripheral nerves. J Neurosurg Spine 2005;3:424-8.
18. Murrey D, Janssen ME, Delamarter RB, et al. Twenty-four month results from the prospective, randomized multicenter IDE trial of ProDisc-C versus ACDF. Spine J 2007;7:30S-S.