Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Clinical and radiological outcomes of cervical disc arthroplasty: ten year follow-up study

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Orthopaedics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Previous studies have demonstrated that cervical disc arthroplasty has favourable short- and medium-term clinical and radiological outcomes. However, long-term follow-up outcomes have rarely been reported. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the ten year follow-up clinical and radiological outcomes in patients who underwent Bryan cervical disc arthroplasty.

Methods

Seventy-one patients who underwent single-level Bryan cervical disc arthroplasty with a minimum ten year follow-up were included in the study. Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score, neck disability index (NDI), and Odom’s criteria were used to evaluate clinical outcomes. X-ray, CT, and MRI were used to evaluate the radiological outcomes.

Results

At last follow-up, the JOA score and NDI improved significantly, and 65 patients (91.5%) had good or excellent outcomes according to Odom’s criteria. The range of motion (ROM) at operated level was 9.7° pre-operatively and maintained to 8.6° at last follow-up. The sagittal alignment of operated level was decreased from 2.1° pre-operatively to 1.2° at last follow-up (P < 0.01). The ROM and sagittal alignment of cervical spine had no significant change. At last follow-up, 16 patients (22.5%) developed segmental kyphosis, and 33 patients (46.5%) developed adjacent segment degeneration. Paravertebral ossification (PO) was observed in 66 patients (93.0%), and high-grade PO (grades III and IV) was observed in 25 patients (35.2%).

Conclusions

The clinical and radiological outcomes of Bryan cervical disc arthroplasty over ten years follow-up are satisfying. However, the occurrence of high-grade PO restricted the ROM of operated level.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Cloward RB (1958) The anterior approach for removal of ruptured cervical disks. J Neurosurg 15(6):602–617. https://doi.org/10.3171/jns.1958.15.6.0602

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. van Eck CF, Regan C, Donaldson WF, Kang JD, Lee JY (2014) The revision rate and occurrence of adjacent segment disease after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a study of 672 consecutive patients. Spine 39(26):2143–2147. https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0000000000000636

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Kong L, Cao J, Wang L, Shen Y (2016) Prevalence of adjacent segment disease following cervical spine surgery: a PRISMA-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine 95(27):e4171. https://doi.org/10.1097/md.0000000000004171

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Lee JH, Park WM, Kim YH, Jahng TA (2016) A biomechanical analysis of an artificial disc with a shock-absorbing core property by using whole-cervical spine finite element analysis. Spine 41(15):E893–E901. https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0000000000001468

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Shriver MF, Lubelski D, Sharma AM, Steinmetz MP, Benzel EC, Mroz TE (2016) Adjacent segment degeneration and disease following cervical arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Spine J 16(2):168–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2015.10.032

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Goffin J, Casey A, Kehr P, Liebig K, Lind B, Logroscino C, Pointillart V, Van Calenbergh F, van Loon J (2002) Preliminary clinical experience with the Bryan cervical disc prosthesis. Neurosurgery 51(3):840–845 discussion 845-847

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Lei T, Liu Y, Wang H, Xu J, Ma Q, Wang L, Shen Y (2016) Clinical and radiological analysis of Bryan cervical disc arthroplasty: eight-year follow-up results compared with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Int Orthop 40(6):1197–1203. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-015-3098-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Tian W, Yan K, Han X, Yu J, Jin P, Han X (2017) Comparison of the clinical and radiographic results between cervical artificial disk replacement and anterior cervical fusion: a 6-year prospective nonrandomized comparative study. Clin Spine Surg 30(5):E578–e586. https://doi.org/10.1097/bsd.0000000000000206

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Tian W, Han X, Liu B, He D, Lv Y, Yue J (2017) Generation and development of paravertebral ossification in cervical artificial disk replacement: a detailed analytic report using coronal reconstruction CT. Clin Spine Surg 30(3):E179–e188. https://doi.org/10.1097/bsd.0000000000000044

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Fong SY, DuPlessis SJ, Casha S, Hurlbert RJ (2006) Design limitations of Bryan disc arthroplasty. Spine J 6(3):233–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2006.01.007

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Fukui M, Chiba K, Kawakami M, Kikuchi S, Konno S, Miyamoto M, Seichi A, Shimamura T, Shirado O, Taguchi T, Takahashi K, Takeshita K, Tani T, Toyama Y, Wada E, Yonenobu K, Tanaka T, Hirota Y (2007) An outcome measure for patients with cervical myelopathy: Japanese Orthopaedic Association Cervical Myelopathy Evaluation Questionnaire (JOACMEQ): part 1. J Orthop Sci 12(3):227–240. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00776-007-1118-1

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Wu S, Ma C, Mai M, Li G (2010) Translation and validation study of Chinese versions of the neck disability index and the neck pain and disability scale. Spine 35(16):1575–1579. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181c6ea1b

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Odom GL, Finney W, Woodhall B (1958) Cervical disk lesions. J Am Med Assoc 166(1):23–28

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Walraevens J, Liu B, Meersschaert J, Demaerel P, Delye H, Depreitere B, Vander Sloten J, Goffin J (2009) Qualitative and quantitative assessment of degeneration of cervical intervertebral discs and facet joints. Eur Spine J 18(3):358–369. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-008-0820-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Miyazaki M, Hong SW, Yoon SH, Morishita Y, Wang JC (2008) Reliability of a magnetic resonance imaging-based grading system for cervical intervertebral disc degeneration. J Spinal Disord Tech 21(4):288–292. https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0b013e31813c0e59

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Quan GM, Vital JM, Hansen S, Pointillart V (2011) Eight-year clinical and radiological follow-up of the Bryan cervical disc arthroplasty. Spine 36(8):639–646. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181dc9b51

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Zhao Y, Zhang Y, Sun Y, Pan S, Zhou F, Liu Z (2016) Application of cervical arthroplasty with Bryan cervical disc: 10-year follow-up results in China. Spine 41(2):111–115. https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0000000000001145

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Dejaegher J, Walraevens J, van Loon J, Van Calenbergh F, Demaerel P, Goffin J (2017) 10-year follow-up after implantation of the Bryan cervical disc prosthesis. Eur Spine J 26(4):1191–1198. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4897-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Villavicencio AT, Babuska JM, Ashton A, Busch E, Roeca C, Nelson EL, Mason A, Burneikiene S (2011) Prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical study evaluating the correlation of clinical outcomes and cervical sagittal alignment. Neurosurgery 68(5):1309–1316; discussion 1316. https://doi.org/10.1227/NEU.0b013e31820b51f3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Sasso RC, Metcalf NH, Hipp JA, Wharton ND, Anderson PA (2011) Sagittal alignment after Bryan cervical arthroplasty. Spine 36(13):991–996. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182076d70

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Sears WR, Duggal N, Sekhon LH, Williamson OD (2007) Segmental malalignment with the Bryan cervical disc prosthesis—contributing factors. J Spinal Disord Tech 20(2):111–117. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.bsd.0000211264.20873.78

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Tian W, Fan MX, Liu YJ, Han X, Yan K, Wang H, Lyu YW (2016) An analysis of paravertebral ossification in cervical artificial disc replacement: a novel classification based on computed tomography. Orthop Surg 8(4):440–446. https://doi.org/10.1111/os.12286

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Kong L, Ma Q, Meng F, Cao J, Yu K, Shen Y (2017) The prevalence of heterotopic ossification among patients after cervical artificial disc replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine 96(24):e7163. https://doi.org/10.1097/md.0000000000007163

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Park JH, Rhim SC, Roh SW (2013) Mid-term follow-up of clinical and radiologic outcomes in cervical total disk replacement (Mobi-C): incidence of heterotopic ossification and risk factors. J Spinal Disord Tech 26(3):141–145. https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0b013e31823ba071

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Yi S, Oh J, Choi G, Kim TY, Shin HC, Kim KN, Kim KS, Yoon DH (2014) The fate of heterotopic ossification associated with cervical artificial disc replacement. Spine 39(25):2078–2083. https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0000000000000640

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Spine Surgery, Beijing Jishuitan Hospital, The Fourth Clinical College of Peking University, No. 31 Xinjiekou East Street, Xicheng District, Beijing, China

    Qingpeng Song, Da He, Xiao Han, Ning Zhang, Jinchao Wang & Wei Tian

Authors
  1. Qingpeng Song
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Da He
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Xiao Han
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ning Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jinchao Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Wei Tian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wei Tian.

Ethics declarations

The study was conducted according to the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Ethics Committee of Beijing Jishuitan Hospital. All patients gave their informed consent prior to their inclusion in the study.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Song, Q., He, D., Han, X. et al. Clinical and radiological outcomes of cervical disc arthroplasty: ten year follow-up study. International Orthopaedics (SICOT) 42, 2389–2396 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-018-3947-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-018-3947-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation