International Orthopaedics

, Volume 42, Issue 4, pp 851–857 | Cite as

Outcomes of the Bryan cervical disc replacement: fifteen year follow-up

  • Vincent Pointillart
  • Jean-Etienne Castelain
  • Pierre Coudert
  • Derek Thomas Cawley
  • Olivier Gille
  • Jean-Marc Vital
Original Paper



The CTDR is a technique that treats cervical disc degenerative disease. Initial shorter-term studies showed good clinical and radiological results.


To assess the clinical and radiological results of Bryan cervical disc replacement (Medtronic Sofamor Danek Inc., Memphis, TN) at 15-year follow-up.


This prospective study included 20 patients who underwent 22 CTDR, comprising a single-level procedure in 14 patients and two-level procedures in six patients. The mean follow-up period was 15.5 years. The mean age at the intervention was 46.2 years (range: 26–65 years). Two patients needed re-operation for recurrence of symptoms. According to Odom’s criteria, 80.0% (16 of 20 patients) had excellent outcomes, VAS for neck pain was 2.6 (0–10), for shoulder/arm pain it was 1.8 (0–7), and NDI at the final follow up was 14.9. The SF-12 PCS was 46.1, and SF-12 MCS was 51.9. Mobility was maintained in 15 of the 22 (68.2%) operated segments, range of motion (ROM) of prostheses were 9° ± 3.9° (range 4–15°). The prostheses were positioned in kyphosis in 14 of 22 levels (63.6%). There was a positive correlation between the kyphosis of the prosthesis and the occurrence of heterotopic ossification (HO), and their grade (ρ = 0.36, CI 95%[−0.68; 0.07]). HO had developed at 12 of the 22 levels (54.5%) and upper adjacent segment degeneration in 11 of 18 of patients (64.7%). All these results were not significantly different to outcomes at 8 years follow-up.


In a cohort of 20 patients with 15-year clinical and radiological follow-up, the Bryan CTDR has demonstrated a sustained clinical improvement and implant mobility over time, despite a moderate progression of degenerative processes at the prosthetic and adjacent levels.


Cervical total disc replacement Heterotopic ossification Prospective study Bryan cervical prosthesis Adjacent segment disease 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.


  1. 1.
    Fernström U (1966) Arthroplasty with intercorporal endoprothesis in herniated disc and in painful disc. Acta Chir Scand Suppl 357:154–159PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bryan VE (2002) Cervical motion segment replacement. Eur Spine J 11(Suppl 2):S92–S97. PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Goffin J, Casey A, Kehr P et al (2002) Preliminary clinical experience with the Bryan cervical disc prosthesis. Neurosurgery 51:840–845 discussion 845-847CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Goffin J, Van Calenbergh F, van Loon J et al (2003) Intermediate follow-up after treatment of degenerative disc disease with the Bryan cervical disc prosthesis: single-level and bi-level. Spine 28:2673–2678. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Goffin J, van Loon J, Van Calenbergh F, Lipscomb B (2010) A clinical analysis of 4- and 6-year follow-up results after cervical disc replacement surgery using the Bryan cervical disc prosthesis. J Neurosurg Spine 12:261–269. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Heidecke V, Burkert W, Brucke M, Rainov NG (2008) Intervertebral disc replacement for cervical degenerative disease--clinical results and functional outcome at two years in patients implanted with the Bryan cervical disc prosthesis. Acta Neurochir 150:453–459; discussion 459. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Yang S, Wu X, Hu Y et al (2008) Early and intermediate follow-up results after treatment of degenerative disc disease with the Bryan cervical disc prosthesis: single- and multiple-level. Spine 33:E371–E377. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Goffin J, Geusens E, Vantomme N et al (2004) Long-term follow-up after interbody fusion of the cervical spine. J Spinal Disord Tech 17:79–85CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Baba H, Furusawa N, Imura S et al (1993) Late radiographic findings after anterior cervical fusion for spondylotic myeloradiculopathy. Spine 18:2167–2173CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hilibrand AS, Carlson GD, Palumbo MA et al (1999) Radiculopathy and myelopathy at segments adjacent to the site of a previous anterior cervical arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 81:519–528CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Quan GMY, Vital J-M, Hansen S, Pointillart V (2011) Eight-year clinical and radiological follow-up of the Bryan cervical disc arthroplasty. Spine 36:639–646. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zhao Y, Zhang Y, Sun Y et al (2016) Application of cervical arthroplasty with Bryan cervical disc: 10-year follow-up results in China. Spine 41:111–115. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Odom GL, Finney W, Woodhall B (1958) Cervical disk lesions. J Am Med Assoc 166:23–28CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ware J, Kosinski M, Keller SD (1996) A 12-item short-form health survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care 34:220–233CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    White AA, Panjabi MM (1978) The basic kinematics of the human spine. A review of past and current knowledge. Spine 3:12–20CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    McAfee PC, Cunningham BW, Devine J et al (2003) Classification of heterotopic ossification (HO) in artificial disk replacement. J Spinal Disord Tech 16:384–389CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mehren C, Suchomel P, Grochulla F et al (2006) Heterotopic ossification in total cervical artificial disc replacement. Spine 31:2802–2806. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Robertson JT, Papadopoulos SM, Traynelis VC (2005) Assessment of adjacent-segment disease in patients treated with cervical fusion or arthroplasty: a prospective 2-year study. J Neurosurg Spine 3:417–423. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kim SW, Limson MA, Kim S-B et al (2009) Comparison of radiographic changes after ACDF versus Bryan disc arthroplasty in single and bi-level cases. Eur Spine J 18:218–231. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wenger M, Markwalder T-M (2014) Posterior decompression salvages Bryan total disc arthroplasty in post-operatively recurrent uncoforaminal stenosis. J Clin Neurosci Off J Neurosurg Soc Australas 21:741–744. Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Walraevens J, Demaerel P, Suetens P et al (2010) Longitudinal prospective long-term radiographic follow-up after treatment of single-level cervical disk disease with the Bryan cervical disc. Neurosurgery 67:679–687; discussion 687. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Leung C, Casey AT, Goffin J et al (2005) Clinical significance of heterotopic ossification in cervical disc replacement: a prospective multicenter clinical trial. Neurosurgery 57:759–763 discussion 759-763CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Yi S, Shin DA, Kim KN et al (2013) The predisposing factors for the heterotopic ossification after cervical artificial disc replacement. Spine J Off J North Am Spine Soc 13:1048–1054. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kim SW, Shin JH, Arbatin JJ et al (2008) Effects of a cervical disc prosthesis on maintaining sagittal alignment of the functional spinal unit and overall sagittal balance of the cervical spine. Eur Spine J 17:20–29. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sasso RC, Metcalf NH, Hipp JA et al (2011) Sagittal alignment after Bryan cervical arthroplasty. Spine 36:991–996. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Fong SY, DuPlessis SJ, Casha S, Hurlbert RJ (2006) Design limitations of Bryan disc arthroplasty. Spine J Off J North Am Spine Soc 6:233–241. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Xu J-X, Zhang Y-Z, Shen Y, Ding W-Y (2009) Effect of modified techniques in Bryan cervical disc arthroplasty. Spine 34:1012–1017. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Song K-J, Choi B-W, Jeon T-S et al (2011) Adjacent segment degenerative disease: is it due to disease progression or a fusion-associated phenomenon? Comparison between segments adjacent to the fused and non-fused segments. Eur Spine J 20:1940–1945. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Park JY, Kim KH, Kuh SU et al (2013) What are the associative factors of adjacent segment degeneration after anterior cervical spine surgery? Comparative study between anterior cervical fusion and arthroplasty with 5-year follow-up MRI and CT. Eur Spine J 22:1078–1089. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Antosh IJ, DeVine JG, Carpenter CT et al (2010) Magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of adjacent segments after cervical disc arthroplasty: magnet strength and its effect on image quality. Clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 13:722–726. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Neal CJ, Rosner MK, Kuklo TR (2005) Magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of adjacent segments after disc arthroplasty. J Neurosurg Spine 3:342–347. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sasso WR, Smucker JD, Sasso MP, Sasso RC (2016) Long-term clinical outcomes of cervical disc Arthroplasty: a prospective, randomized, controlled trial. Spine 42:209-216.

Copyright information

© SICOT aisbl 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vincent Pointillart
    • 1
  • Jean-Etienne Castelain
    • 1
  • Pierre Coudert
    • 1
  • Derek Thomas Cawley
    • 1
  • Olivier Gille
    • 1
  • Jean-Marc Vital
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Spine Unit 1University Hospital PellegrinBordeauxFrance

Personalised recommendations