Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27904963›Full record

ArticleEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2017

10-year follow-up after implantation of the Bryan Cervical Disc Prosthesis.

Joost Dejaegher, Joris Walraevens, Johannes van Loon, Frank Van Calenbergh, Philippe Demaerel, Jan Goffin

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in 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, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
6.3field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 53 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Complications of cervical total disc replacement and their associations with heterotopic ossification: a systematic review and meta-analysis.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 · 2020
    Pooled it
  3. Explant analysis of two rhine cervical discs.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 · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Cervical disc arthroplasty with the Baguera C prosthesis: clinical and radiological results of a 10-year follow-up study.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 · 2023
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Current Concepts of Cervical Disc Arthroplasty.International journal of spine surgery · 2021
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Single-level Bryan cervical disc arthroplasty: evaluation of radiological and clinical outcomes after 18 years of follow-up.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 · 2020
    Article
  14. Cervical Disc Arthroplasty: An Update on Current Practices.International journal of spine surgery · 2020
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Clinical and radiological evaluation of cervical disc arthroplasty with 5-year follow-up: a prospective study of 384 patients.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 · 2019
    Article
  19. [Effectiveness evaluation of Prodisc-C prosthesis for more than 10 years follow-up after total cervical disc replacement].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2019
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Joost DejaegherDepartment of Neurosurgery, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. Joost.dejaegher@uzleuven.be.ORCID 0000-0002-0050-5485
Joris WalraevensDivision of Biomechanics, KU Leuven, Heverlee, Belgium.
Johannes van LoonDepartment of Neurosurgery, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Frank Van CalenberghDepartment of Neurosurgery, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Philippe DemaerelDepartment of Radiology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Jan GoffinDepartment of Neurosurgery, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
KU Leuven · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeCervical arthroplasty is being used as an alternative for cervical fusion, but long-term follow-up results have rarely been reported. In this paper, we present 10-year follow-up results after implantation of the Bryan Cervical Disc Prosthesis in a single center.

methods89 patients underwent implantation of a single-level Bryan Cervical Disc Prosthesis to treat radiculopathy and/or myelopathy. Clinical (Neurological Success, Neck Disability Index (NDI), Neck- and Arm-Pain, and SF-36) and radiological follow-up was prospectively organized up to 10 years after surgery. Adverse events and second surgeries were recorded and evaluated.

resultsTen-year follow-up data were available for 72 (81%) patients. Maintenance or improvement of the neurological state was seen in 89% of patients after 10-year follow-up. SF-36 PCS scores improved significantly at all follow-up points. SF-36 MCS improvement was significant at 4 and 6 year, but not at 8- and 10-year follow-up. Significant improvement for NDI, and Neck- and Arm-Pain scores was found for the subgroup of patients in whom these data were available. Mean angular motion of the prosthesis at 10-year follow-up was 8.6°. Mobility of the device, defined as >2° of angular motion, was reached in 81% of patients. During the study period, 21 patients (24%) developed new or recurrent radiculopathy or myelopathy, the majority of these being treated conservatively. Seven patients (8%) required 8 additional spine surgeries to treat persistent or recurrent symptoms. Of these, 2 patients (2%) were reoperated at the index level and at 5 (6%) an adjacent level.

conclusionIn this study, favorable long-term clinical outcome after implantation of the Bryan Cervical Disc Prosthesis was seen, with the majority of prostheses remaining mobile after 10-year follow-up. However, still 6% of patients required adjacent level surgery.

Indexed as

Orthopedic ProceduresProsthesis ImplantationCervical VertebraeFollow-Up StudiesHumansIntervertebral DiscBryan cervical disc prosthesisCervical disc arthroplastyCervical disc degenerationCervical spine

Identifiers

PMID27904963
OpenAlexW2557312187

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.