Randomized, controlled, multicenter, clinical trial comparing BRYAN cervical disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical decompression and fusion in china

Spine

Volumn 37, Issue 6, 2012, Pages 433-438

  Zhang, Xuesong ^a   Zhang, Xuelian ^b   Chen, Chao ^c   Zhang, Yonggang ^a   Wang, Zheng ^a   Wang, Bin ^a   Yan, Wangjun ^d   Li, Ming ^b   Yuan, Wen ^d   Wang, Yan ^a  

^a CHINESE PLA GENERAL HOSPITAL   (China)

^b CHINA JAPAN FRIENDSHIP HOSPITAL   (China)

^c CHINA REHABILITATION RESEARCH CENTER   (China)

^d SECOND MILITARY MEDICAL UNIVERSITY   (China)

Author keywords

anterior cervical decompression and fusion; BRYAN cervical disc arthroplasty; cervical spondylotic myelopathy; symptomatic cervical disc disease

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ANTERIOR CERVICAL DECOMPRESSION AND FUSION; ARTHROPLASTY; ARTICLE; CERVICAL DISC ARTHROPLASTY; CHINA; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; JOINT PROSTHESIS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MULTICENTER STUDY; NECK PAIN; OPERATION DURATION; PREOPERATIVE CARE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; RANGE OF MOTION; RATING SCALE; SPINAL CORD DECOMPRESSION; TREATMENT OUTCOME; VISUAL ANALOG SCALE;

ADULT; CERVICAL VERTEBRAE; CHINA; DECOMPRESSION, SURGICAL; DISKECTOMY; FEMALE; HUMANS; INTERVERTEBRAL DISC DEGENERATION; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PAIN MEASUREMENT; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RANGE OF MOTION, ARTICULAR; SPINAL FUSION; TOTAL DISC REPLACEMENT; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84858800760     PISSN: 03622436     EISSN: 15281159     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31822699fa     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Chagas H, Domingues F, Aversa A, et al. Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: 10 years of prospective outcome analysis of anterior decompression and fusion. Surg Neurol 2005;64 (suppl 1): S30-5;discussion S35-6. (Pubitemid 40828223)
2. Cloward RB. The anterior approach for removal of ruptured cervical disks. J Neurosurg 1958;15: 602-17.
3. Eck JC, Humphreys SC, Lim TH, et al. Biomechanical study on the effect of cervical spine fusion on adjacent-level intradiscal pressure and segmental motion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2002;27: 2431-4. (Pubitemid 35346149)
4. Matsunaga S, Kabayama S, Yamamoto T, et al. Strain on intervertebral discs after anterior cervical decompression and fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1999;24: 670-5. (Pubitemid 29162910)
5. 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. (Pubitemid 29211592)
6. Wigfield C, Gill S, Nelson R, et al. Influence of an artificial cervical joint compared with fusion on adjacent-level motion in the treatment of degenerative cervical disc disease. J Neurosurg 2002;96: 17-21. (Pubitemid 34226534)
7. Sasso RC, Best NM. Cervical kinematics after fusion and bryan disc arthroplasty. J Spinal Disord Tech 2008;21: 19-22.
8. Duggal N, Pickett GE, Mitsis DK, et al. Early clinical and biomechanical results following cervical arthroplasty. Neurosurg Focus 2004;17: E9.
9. Fernström U. Arthroplasty with intercorporal endoprosthesis in herniated disc and in painful disc. Acta Chir Scand 1966;357: 154-9.
10. Heller JG, Sasso RC, Papadopoulos SM, et al. Comparison of BRYAN cervical disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical decompression and fusion: clinical and radiographic results of a randomized, controlled, clinical trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2009;34: 101-7.
11. Sasso RC, Best NM, Metcalf NH, et al. Motion analysis of bryan cervical disc arthroplasty versus anterior discectomy and fusion: results from a prospective, randomized, multicenter, clinical trial. J Spinal Disord Tech 2008;21: 393-9.
12. Bertagnoli R, Duggal N, Pickett GE, et al. Cervical total disc replacement, part two: clinical results. Orthop Clin North Am 2005;36: 355-62. (Pubitemid 40805096)
13. 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: E371-7.
14. Sasso RC, Smucker JD, Hacker RJ, et al. Clinical outcomes of BRYAN cervical disc arthroplasty: a prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter trial with 24-month follow-up. J Spinal Disord Tech 2007;20: 481-91. (Pubitemid 47524952)
15. Vicario C, Lopez-Oliva F, Sanchez-Lorente T, et al. Anterior cervical fusion with tantalum interbody implants. Clinical and radiological results in a prospective study [in Spanish]. Neurocirugia (Astur) 2006;17: 132-9. (Pubitemid 43774244)
16. Fowler SB, Anthony-Phillips P, Mehta D, et al. Health-related quality of life in patients undergoing anterior cervical discectomy fusion. J Neurosci Nurs 2005;37: 97-100.
17. Suchomel P, Barsa P, Buchvald P, et al. Autologous versus allogenic bone grafts in instrumented anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a prospective study with respect to bone union pattern. Eur Spine J 2004;13: 510-5. (Pubitemid 39480660)
18. Cherry C. Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for cervical disc disease. AORN J 2002;76: 998-1004, 1007-8;quiz 1009-12.
19. Hilibrand AS, Robbins M. Adjacent segment degeneration and adjacent segment disease: the consequences of spinal fusion? Spine J 2004;4: 190S-4S. (Pubitemid 39497304)
20. Riina J, Patel A, Dietz JW, et al. Comparison of single-level cervical fusion and a metal-on-metal cervical disc replacement device. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ) 2008;37: E71-7.
21. McAfee PC, Cunningham BW, Hayes V, et al. Biomechanical analysis of rotational motions after disc arthroplasty: implications for patients with adult deformities. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2006;31: S152-60. (Pubitemid 44339460)
22. McAfee PC, Cunningham B, Dmitriev A, et al. Cervical disc replacement-porous coated motion prosthesis: a comparative biomechanical analysis showing the key role of the posterior longitudinal ligament. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2003;28: S176-85. (Pubitemid 37266723)
23. Yang YC, Nie L, Cheng L, et al. Clinical and radiographic reports following cervical arthroplasty: a 24-month follow-up. Int Orthop 2009;33: 1037-42.
24. Kotani Y, Cunningham BW, Abumi K, et al. Multidirectional flexibility analysis of cervical artificial disc reconstruction: in vitro human cadaveric spine model. J Neurosurg Spine 2005;2: 188-94.
25. Liu F, Cheng J, Komistek RD, et al. In vivo evaluation of dynamic characteristics of the normal, fused, and disc replacement cervical spines. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2007;32: 2578-84. (Pubitemid 350059485)
26. Wang Y, Zhang X, Xiao S, et al. Clinical report of cervical arthroplasty in management of spondylotic myelopathy in Chinese. J Orthop Surg Res 2006;1: 13.
27. Wenger M, Hoonacker P, Zachee B, et al. Bryan cervical disc prostheses: preservation of function over time. J Clin Neurosci 2009;16: 220-5.
28. Kim SW, Limson MA, Kim SB, et al. Comparison of radiographic changes after ACDF versus Bryan disc arthroplasty in single and bi-level cases. Eur Spine J 2009;18: 218-31.
29. 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 (Phila Pa 1976) 2007;32: 2933-40;discussion 2941-2. (Pubitemid 350307273)
30. Johnson JP, Lauryssen C, Cambron HO, et al. Sagittal alignment and the Bryan cervical artificial disc. Neurosurg Focus 2004;17: E14.
31. Fong SY, DuPlessis SJ, Casha S, et al. Design limitations of Bryan disc arthroplasty. Spine J 2006;6: 233-41.
32. Anderson PA, Sasso RC, Riew KD. Comparison of adverse events between the Bryan artificial cervical disc and anterior cervical arthrodesis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2008;33: 1305-12.
33. McAfee PC, Cunningham BW, Devine J, et al. Classifi cation of heterotopic ossifi cation (HO) in artificial disk replacement. J Spinal Disord Tech 2003;16: 384-9.
34. Xu JX, Zhang YZ, Shen Y, et al. Effect of modifi ed techniques in Bryan cervical disc arthroplasty. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2009;34: 1012-7.