Postoperative segmental malalignment after surgery with the Bryan cervical disc prosthesis: Is it related to the mechanics and design of the prosthesis?

Journal of Spinal Disorders and Techniques

Volumn 23, Issue 6, 2010, Pages 372-376

  Walraevens, Joris R R ^a   Liu, Baoge ^a   Sloten, Jozef Vander ^a   Demaerel, Philippe ^a   Goffin, Jan ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS LEUVEN   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Bryan Cervical Disc; cervical spine; prosthesis; segmental alignment

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BRYAN CERVICAL DISC PROSTHESIS; CERVICAL SPINE RADIOGRAPHY; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; KYPHOSIS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT SELECTION; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATION; PREOPERATIVE EVALUATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTHESIS; SURGICAL TECHNIQUE;

ADULT; CERVICAL VERTEBRAE; DISKECTOMY; FEMALE; HUMANS; INTERVERTEBRAL DISK; INTERVERTEBRAL DISK DEGENERATION; INTERVERTEBRAL DISK DISPLACEMENT; KYPHOSIS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT SELECTION; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; PROSTHESIS IMPLANTATION; RANGE OF MOTION, ARTICULAR; SPINAL FUSION; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 77955451560     PISSN: 15360652     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/BSD.0b013e3181bccc69     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Anderson PA, Sasso RC, Rouleau JP, et al. The Bryan Cervical Disc: wear properties and early clinical results. Spine J. 2004; 4:303S-309S.
2. Goffin J, Casey A, Kehr P, et al. Preliminary clinical experience with the Bryan Cervical Disc Prosthesis. Neurosurgery. 2002;51:840-845.
3. 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; 28:2673-2678.
4. Sasso RC, Smucker JD, Hacker RJ, et al. Artificial disc versus fusion: a prospective, randomized study with 2-year follow-up on 99 patients. Spine. 2007;32:2933-2940.
5. Yang S, Wu X, Hu Y, et al. Early and intermediate follow-up results after treatment of degenerative disc disease with the Bryan Cervical Disc Prosthesis: single- and multiple-level. Spine. 2008;33:E371-E377.
6. Fong SY, DuPlessis SJ, Casha S, et al. Design limitations of Bryan disc arthroplasty. Spine J. 2006;6:233-241.
7. Johnson JP, Lauryssen C, Cambron HO, et al. Sagittal alignment and the Bryan cervical artificial disc. Neurosurg Focus, 2004;17:E14.
8. Pickett GE, Mitsis DK, Sekhon LH, et al. Effects of a cervical disc prosthesis on segmental and cervical spine alignment. Neurosurg Focus. 2004;17:E5.
9. Sears WR, Sekhon LH, Duggal N, et al. Segmental malalignment with the Bryan Cervical Disc prosthesis-does it occur? J Spinal Disord Tech. 2007;20:1-6. (Pubitemid 46220317)
10. Sekhon LHS. Two-level artificial disc placement for spondylotic cervical myelopathy. J Clin Neurosci. 2004;11:412-415.
11. Xu J, Zhang Y, Shen Y, et al. Effect of modified techniques in Bryan cervical disc arthroplasty. Spine. 2009;34:1012-1017.
12. Bryan VE Jr. Cervical motion segment replacement. Eur Spine J. 2002;11:S92-S97.
13. Lafuente J, Casey AT, Petzold A, et al. The Bryan cervical disc prosthesis as an alternative to arthrodesis in the treatment of cervical spondylosis: 46 consecutive cases. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005;87:508-512.
14. Katsuura A, Hukuda S, Saruhashi Y, et al. Kyphotic malalignment after anterior cervical fusion is one of the factors promoting the degenerative process in adjacent intervertebral levels. Eur Spine J. 2001;10:320-324.
15. Wang Y, Xiao SH, Lu N, et al. Clinical report of cervical arthroplasty in management of spondylotic myelopathy. Chin J Surg. 2004;42:1333-1337.
16. Yi S, Shin HC, Kim KN, et al. Modified techniques to prevent sagittal imbalance after cervical arthroplasty. Spine. 2007;32: 1986-1991.
17. Kim S, Shin J, Arbatin J, et al. 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. 2007;17:20-29.
18. Goffin J. Comment on clinical article: Heidecke V, Burkert W, Brucke M and Rainov NG Intervertebral disc replacement for cervical degenerative disease-clinical results and functional outcome at two years in patients implanted with the Bryan cervical disc prosthesis. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2008;50:453-459; discussion 459.
19. Hacker B, Papadopoulos S, Sasso R. Bryan disc related cervical kyphosis. Spine J. 2007;7:139.
20. Shim CS, Lee SH, Park HJ, et al. Early clinical and radiologic outcomes of cervical arthroplasty with Bryan cervical disc prosthesis. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2006;19:465-470.
21. Yoon DH, Yi S, Shin HC, et al. Clinical and radiological results following cervical arthroplasty. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2006; 148:943-950.
22. Sears WR, Duggal N, Sekhon LH, et al. Segmental malalignment with the Bryan cervical disc prosthesis-contributing factors. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2007:20:111-117. (Pubitemid 46588320)