Trial reportClinical orthopaedics and related research2011
Superiority of the Bryan(®) disc prosthesis for cervical myelopathy: a randomized study with 3-year followup.
Trial report in Clinical orthopaedics and related research, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 11 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
26 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 71 citations in OpenAlex.
- Randomized controlled trials comparing cervical disc arthroplasty and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion outcomes in degenerative spine disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of neurosurgery. Spine · 2025Pooled it
- The Fragility of Statistical Findings in Cervical Disc Arthroplasty: a Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2024Pooled it
- Cervical radiculopathy: is a prosthesis preferred over fusion surgery? A systematic review.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2020Pooled it
- Cervical Artificial Disc Replacement Versus Fusion for Cervical Degenerative Disc Disease: A Health Technology Assessment.Ontario health technology assessment series · 2019Pooled it
- Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) versus cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) for two contiguous levels cervical disc degenerative disease: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2017Pooled it
- Durability of cervical disc arthroplasties and its influence factors: A systematic review and a network meta-analysis.Medicine · 2017Pooled it
- Reoperation After Cervical Disc Arthroplasty Versus Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Meta-analysis.Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2016Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Polyurethane on titanium unconstrained disc arthroplasty versus anterior discectomy and fusion for the treatment of cervical disc disease: a review of level I-II randomized clinical trials including clinical outcomes.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2015Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Is cervical disc arthroplasty superior to fusion for treatment of symptomatic cervical disc disease? A meta-analysis.Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2013Pooled it
- Cervical Disc Arthroplasty for the Treatment of Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy: What's the Evidence?Global spine journal · 2026Article
- Review
- Cervical Disc Arthroplasty: Rationale, Designs, and Results of Randomized Controlled Trials.International journal of spine surgery · 2024Article
- Article
- A Systematic Review on Neurological Outcomes for Cervical Degenerative Myelopathy After Anterior Decompression Surgery: Motion Preservation vs Fusion.International journal of spine surgery · 2022Article
- Review
- Cervical Total Disc Replacement and Heterotopic Ossification: A Review of Literature Outcomes and Biomechanics.Asian spine journal · 2021Article
- Restoration of Spinal Motion: Conversion of Anterior Cervical Fusion With Pseudarthrosis to Artificial Disc Replacement.International journal of spine surgery · 2020Article
- Quality of Life in Patients Undergoing Spine Surgery: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Global spine journal · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe current standard of care for cervical myopathy is anterior discectomy and fusion (ACDF). Although well tolerated in the short term, this treatment might ultimately result in progressive degeneration of adjacent motion segments. Artificial disc arthroplasty offers the theoretical advantage of preservation of motion at the operative level with consequent stress reduction at adjacent levels. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We compared function, radiographic measures, and incidence of complications at 3-year followup after cervical disc arthroplasty with the Bryan(®) prosthesis and ACDF in patients with cervical myelopathy. PATIENTS AND
methodsEighty-three patients with cervical myelopathy were randomized to undergo arthroplasty with implantation of a Bryan(®) cervical disc prosthesis (n = 41) or ACDF (n = 42). Patients were assessed preoperatively to 3 years postoperatively using the modified Odom's criteria, Japanese Orthopaedic Association scale, SF-36, and Neck Disability Index. ROM, stability, and subsidence of the prostheses were evaluated radiographically.
resultsPatients who received the Bryan(®) prosthesis scored significantly better in three of the four functional assessment methods used (Japanese Orthopaedic Association scale, SF-36, and Neck Disability Index). ROM was retained by the patients in the Bryan(®) group but not in the patients in the ACDF group. Patients in the Bryan(®) group had fewer complications, primarily because dysphagia occurred in only one patient in the Bryan(®) group but in seven patients in the ACDF group. Other complications included pseudarthrosis in three patients in the ACDF group and one patient had spontaneous fusion, one had deep vein thrombosis, and one had heterotopic ossification in the Bryan(®) group.
conclusionsBryan(®) cervical disc arthroplasty appears reliable and effective in the treatment of cervical myelopathy. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, therapeutic study. See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of the levels of evidence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.