Long-term kinematic analysis of cervical spine after single-level implantation of Bryan cervical disc prosthesis: a review

<sec><title>OBJECTIVE:</title> To review the medical records of patients who underwent surgery for placement of cervical disc prosthesis after two years of postoperative follow-up, showing the basic epidemiological data, the technical aspects and the incidence of complications.</sec><sec><title>METHODS:</title> Medical records of seven patients who underwent surgery for placement of cervical disc prosthesis were reviewed after two years of follow-up, at the Institute of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Faculty of Medicine, University of São Paulo.</sec><sec><title>RESULTS:</title> The average age of patients participating in this study was 43.86 years. Six patients (85.7%) had one level approached while one patient (14.3%) had two levels addressed. The level C5-C6 has been approached in one patient (14.3%) while the C6-C7 level was addressed in five patients (71.4%). One patient (14.3%) had these two levels being addressed, C5-C6 and C6-C7. The mean operative time was 164.29±40 minutes. Three patients were hospitalized for 2 days and four for 3 days making an average of 2.57±0.535 days. Two patients (28.6%) underwent a new surgical intervention due to loosening of the prosthesis. The mean follow-up was 28.14±5.178 months (23-35 months).</sec><sec><title>CONCLUSIONS:</title> Although cervical arthroplasty appears to be a safe procedure and present promising results in our study as well as in many other studies, it requires long-term studies.</sec>

Download Full-text

Cervical spine kinematics after anterior cervical discectomy with or without implantation of a mobile cervical disc prosthesis; an RCT

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders ◽

10.1186/s12891-015-0479-4 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 16 (1) ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Toon FM Boselie ◽

Henk van Mameren ◽

Rob A de Bie ◽

Henk van Santbrink

Keyword(s):

Cervical Spine ◽

Anterior Cervical Discectomy ◽

Cervical Disc ◽

Disc Prosthesis ◽

Cervical Discectomy ◽

Spine Kinematics ◽

Cervical Disc Prosthesis

Download Full-text

In vitro evaluation of a ball-and-socket cervical disc prosthesis with cranial geometric center

Journal of Neurosurgery Spine ◽

10.3171/2009.6.spine0949 ◽

2009 ◽

Vol 11 (5) ◽

pp. 538-546 ◽

Cited By ~ 11

Author(s):

Cédric Barrey ◽

Thomas Mosnier ◽

Jérôme Jund ◽

Gilles Perrin ◽

Wafa Skalli

Keyword(s):

Cervical Spine ◽

Axial Rotation ◽

Cervical Disc ◽

Disc Prosthesis ◽

Lateral Bending ◽

Flexion Extension ◽

Cervical Disc Prosthesis ◽

Before And After ◽

Left And Right

Object Few biomechanical in vitro studies have reported the effects of disc replacement on motion and kinematics of the cervical spine. The purpose of this study was to analyze motion through 3D load-displacement curves before and after implantation of a ball-and-socket cervical disc prosthesis with cranial geometric center; special focus was placed on coupled motion, which is a well-known aspect of normal cervical spine kinematics. Methods Six human cervical spines were studied. There were 3 male and 3 female cadaveric specimens (mean age at death 68.5 ± 5 years [range 54–74 years]). The specimens were evaluated sequentially in 2 different conditions: first they were tested intact; then the spinal specimens were tested after implantation of a ball-and-socket cervical disc prosthesis, the Discocerv, at the C5–6 level. Pure moment loading was applied in flexion/extension, left and right axial rotation, and left and right lateral bending. All tests were performed under load control with a 3D measurement system. Results No differences were found to be statistically significant after comparison of range of motion between intact and instrumented spines for all loading conditions. The mean range of motion for intact spines was 10.3° in flexion/extension, 5.6° in lateral bending, and 5.4° in axial rotation; that for instrumented spines was 10.4, 5.2, and 4.8°, respectively. No statistical difference was observed for the neutral zone nor stiffness between intact and instrumented spines. Finally, the coupled motions were also preserved during axial rotation and lateral bending, with no significant difference before and after implantation. Conclusions This study demonstrated that, under specific testing conditions, a ball-and-socket joint with cranial geometrical center can restore motion in the 3 planes after discectomy in the cervical spine while maintaining physiological coupled motions during axial rotation and lateral bending.

Download Full-text