|Titel||Comparison of BRYAN cervical disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical decompression and fusion: clinical and radiographic results of a randomized, controlled, clinical trial. |
|Publication Type||Journal Article |
|Year of Publication||2009 |
|Authors||Heller, JG, Sasso, RC, Papadopoulos, SM, Anderson, PA, Fessler, RG, Hacker, RJ, Coric, D, Cauthen, JC, Riew, DK |
|Date Published||2009 Jan 15 |
|Schlüsselwörter||Adult, Aged, Arthroplasty, Cervical Vertebrae, Decompression, Surgical, Diskectomy, Endpoint Determination, Female, Humans, Intervertebral Disc, Intervertebral Disc Displacement, Male, Middle Aged, Neurosurgical Procedures, Postoperative Complications, Prospective Studies, Prostheses and Implants, Spinal Fusion, Treatment Outcome |
|Abstract|| STUDY DESIGN: A prospective, randomized, multicenter study of surgical treatment of cervical disc disease.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety and efficacy of cervical disc arthroplasty using a new arthroplasty device at 24-months follow-up.
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Cervical disc arthroplasty preserves motion in the cervical spine. It is an alternative to fusion after neurologic decompression, whereas anterior decompression and fusion provides a rigorous comparative benchmark of success.
METHODS: We conducted a randomized controlled multicenter clinical trial enrolling patients with cervical disc disease. Ultimately 242 received the investigational device (Bryan Cervical Disc), and 221 patients underwent a single-level anterior cervical discectomy and decompression and fusion as a control group. Patients completed clinical and radiographic follow-up examinations at regular intervals for 2 years after surgery.
RESULTS: Analysis of 12- and 24-month postoperative data showed improvement in all clinical outcome measures for both groups; however, 24 months after surgery, the investigational group patients treated with the artificial disc had a statistically greater improvement in the primary outcome variables: Neck disability index score (P = 0.025) and overall success (P = 0.010). With regard to implant- or implant/surgical-procedure-associated serious adverse events, the investigational group had a rate of 1.7% and the control group, 3.2%. There was no statistical difference between the 2 groups with regard to the rate of secondary surgical procedures performed subsequent to the index procedure. Patients who received the artificial cervical disc returned to work nearly 2 weeks earlier than the fusion patients (P = 0.015).
CONCLUSION: Two-year follow-up results indicate that cervical disc arthroplasty is a viable alternative to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion in patients with persistently symptomatic, single-level cervical disc disease. |
|Alternate Journal||Spine |
|Full Text|| |
|PubMed ID||19112337 |