ArticleOrthopaedic surgery2019
Comparison of 10-year Outcomes of Bryan Cervical Disc Arthroplasty for Myelopathy and Radiculopathy.
Article in Orthopaedic surgery, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Long-Term Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes After Bryan Cervical Disk Arthroplasty: A Systematic Literature Review.Acta neurochirurgica. Supplement · 2023Pooled it
- Long-Term Comparison of Single-Level Bryan and ProDisc-C Cervical Disc Arthroplasty: A Minimum 10-year Follow-Up of Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes.Global spine journal · 2026Article
- Degenerative cervical myelopathy: timing of surgery.EFORT open reviews · 2025Article
- Comparison of Load-Sharing Responses Between Graded Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy and Conventional Fusion Using Finite Element Modeling.Journal of engineering and science in medical diagnostics and therapy · 2024Article
- Influence of the deviated center of rotation on the range of motion after cervical disc arthroplasty -an in vivo study with a minimum of 10-year follow-up.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2023Article
- The fatty infiltration into cervical paraspinal muscle as a predictor of postoperative outcomes: A controlled study based on hybrid surgery.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2023Article
- Long-term follow-up MRI shows no hastening of adjacent segment degeneration following cervical disc arthroplasty.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Optimizing the Application of Surgery for Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy [AO Spine RECODE-DCM Research Priority Number 10].Global spine journal · 2022Article
- Risk Factors for Dysphagia after Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion with the Zero-P implant system: A Study with Minimum of 2 Years Follow-up.Orthopaedic surgery · 2022Article
- 3D-Printed Screw-Rod Auxiliary System for Unstable Atlas Fractures: A Retrospective Analysis.Orthopaedic surgery · 2021Article
- Different Surgical Strategy for Patients with Cervical Angina: A Potential Role of Luschka's Joint Osteophyte.Orthopaedic surgery · 2020Article
- 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 · 2020Article
- Comparative analysis of the biomechanics of the adjacent segments after minimally invasive cervical surgeries versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: A finite element study.Journal of orthopaedic translation · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the long-term efficacy of Bryan cervical disc arthroplasty in the treatment of myelopathy patients compared with radiculopathy patients.
methodsThis study is a prospective study. Sixty-six patients (38 patients in myelopathy group and 28 patients in radiculopathy group) who were treated with Bryan cervical disc arthroplasty between 2004 and 2007 and followed for 10 years were included in this study. The Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score, neck disability index (NDI), and Odom's criteria were used to evaluate the clinical outcomes. X-ray, computed tomography (CT), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were used to evaluate the radiographic outcomes including the global range of motion (ROM), segmental ROM, and segment alignment before the surgery and at last follow-up. The incidence of segmental kyphosis, segmental mobility lost, and the grade of paravertebral ossification (PO) were also evaluated at last follow-up.
resultsThe JOA score and NDI improved in both groups. Thirty-three of 38 patients in myelopathy group and all patients in radiculopathy group reported good or excellent outcomes according to Odom's criteria. The segmental ROM was (9.5° ± 4.4°) before surgery and maintained at (9.0° ± 5.5°) at last follow-up in myelopathy group. The segmental ROM was (9.5° ± 4.6°) and (9.0° ± 5.3°) before surgery and at last follow-up in radiculopathy group, respectively. The Bryan prosthesis remained mobile at last follow-up for 30 patients (78.9%) in the myelopathy group and 22 patients (78.6%) in the radiculopathy group. Of the patients in the myelopathy group, 21.1% developed segmental kyphosis, as did 21.4% of patients in the radiculopathy group. The incidence of PO and high-grade PO was 92.1 and 28.9% in the myelopathy group, and was 92.9 and 32.1% in the radiculopathy group. There was no significant difference between both groups.
conclusionsBryan cervical disc arthroplasty was an effective and safe technique in treating patients with myelopathy. The clinical and radiographic outcomes in the myelopathy group were similar to those in the radiculopathy group at the 10-year follow-up.
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.