Background: Artificial cervical disc replacement has become an option for cervical radiculopathy. Previous studies have evaluated the efficacy of this alternative without the scientific rigor of a concurrent control p...Background: Artificial cervical disc replacement has become an option for cervical radiculopathy. Previous studies have evaluated the efficacy of this alternative without the scientific rigor of a concurrent control population in oriental patients for long-term follow-up. Objective: Therefore, we asked whether the 1) clinical and 2) radiographic outcomes of Bryan cervical disc prosthesis were better than that of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) at single site, and whether the 3) occurrences of heterotopic ossifications (HOs) were associated to the function loss in the long-term follow-up. Methods:?A total of 120 patients with cervical disc disease were randomly assigned to two groups (Bryan or ACDF), and 60-month follow-up is available for all the 120 patients. Clinical outcomes were assessed using Odom’s criteria, visual analogue pain scale (VAS) and Neck Disability Index (NDI). Radiographs were measured to determine the radiographic outcomes and occurrences of heterotopic ossifications (HOs).?Results: The clinical outcomes are not significantly between the two groups (VAS, P = 0.7253;NDI, P = 0.5528). The radiographic outcome ofBryancervical disc prosthesis is better than that of ACDF group at the index level (P < 0.05). 36 (60%) patients ofBryangroup developed heterotopic ossification. But, there is not a significant association between HOs and the loss of movement at the replacement level. Conclusions: The Bryan artificial disc replacement compares favorably to ACDF for the treatment of patients with 1-level cervical disc disease. And theBryandisc may delay adjacent level degeneration by preserving preoperative kinematics at adjacent levels in oriental patients.展开更多
Objective To compare the clinical outcomes of Bryan disc replacement with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) in patients with cervical spondylopathy. Methods Sixteen patients underwent Bryan cervicaldisc r...Objective To compare the clinical outcomes of Bryan disc replacement with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) in patients with cervical spondylopathy. Methods Sixteen patients underwent Bryan cervicaldisc replacement (A group) ,and展开更多
目的:收集并分析SCI收录的关于Bryan颈椎间盘置换术与颈前路减压椎间融合术(anterior cervical discectomy and fusion,ACDF)术后疗效比较的文献,对Bryan颈椎间盘置换术和ACDF术后疗效进行系统评价。方法:检索Pubmed、Medline、Embase、...目的:收集并分析SCI收录的关于Bryan颈椎间盘置换术与颈前路减压椎间融合术(anterior cervical discectomy and fusion,ACDF)术后疗效比较的文献,对Bryan颈椎间盘置换术和ACDF术后疗效进行系统评价。方法:检索Pubmed、Medline、Embase、Ovid、Cochrane Library等数据库。入选文献均为临床研究;各研究的干预组(治疗组)术式为Bryan颈椎间盘置换术,对照组术式为ACDF;治疗组和对照组例数均不小于10;术后疗效评价包括颈部功能残障指数(neck disability index,NDI),相应节段运动范围(range of motion,ROM)等常见指标。结果:共4篇文献符合纳入标准。纳入人数共588人,干预组303例,对照组285例;术后2年内NDI合并权重均差(weighted mean difference,WMD)为-0.39(95%CI,-1.56～0.78),P>0.05。术后2年内相应颈椎节段运动范围(ROM)合并WMD值为8.95(95%CI,7.01～10.89),P<0.05。结论:Bryan间盘置换术在术后2年内保留颈椎节段活动方面优于ACDF,尚没有足够证据表明Bryan间盘置换术术后2年内NDI优于ACDF。展开更多
目的探讨颈椎前路减压植骨融合术(anterior cervical decompression and fusion,ACDF)与Bryan人工颈椎椎间盘置换术(artificial cervical disc replacement,ACDR)两种手术方式用于治疗脊髓型颈椎病及神经根型颈椎病的近期和远期疗效。...目的探讨颈椎前路减压植骨融合术(anterior cervical decompression and fusion,ACDF)与Bryan人工颈椎椎间盘置换术(artificial cervical disc replacement,ACDR)两种手术方式用于治疗脊髓型颈椎病及神经根型颈椎病的近期和远期疗效。方法系统分析我院2010年11月至2012年11月70例(70个节段)脊髓型或神经根型颈椎病患者病例资料,将70例(70个节段)脊髓型或神经根型颈椎病患者,通过随机数字表法随机分为ACDF组(35例)及Bryan组(35例)。通过分析术前及术后随访12个月的Odom's标准评分、活动度(range of motion,ROM)、日本骨科协会(Japanese orthopaedic association,JOA)、健康调查简表(the MOS item short from health survey,SF-36)及颈椎残障功能指数(neck disability index,NDI)观察指标的差异,同时对随访12个月的上述各项指标进行两组间比较,比较两者疗效,分析两种术式的优点及他们产生的问题。结果两种手术方式都能取得明确疗效,治疗后患者症状明显缓解(P<0.05),两种术式在创伤、出血量等方面差异性不显著(P>0.05);JOA评分及SF-36评分两者差异性不显著(P>0.05);而在12个月随访ROM评估及NDI比较有差异,Bryan组数据优于ACDF组,差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05);Bryan组在Odom's评分中因减压不彻底及异位骨化,有2例等级为差,ACDF组则为0例。结论 Bryan人工颈椎椎间盘置换术在减少颈椎临近节段退变上优于ACDF,短中期疗效优于ACDF,但Bryan人工颈椎椎间盘置换术同时存在减压不彻底及异位骨化等并发症,远期疗效不如ACDF。展开更多
文摘Background: Artificial cervical disc replacement has become an option for cervical radiculopathy. Previous studies have evaluated the efficacy of this alternative without the scientific rigor of a concurrent control population in oriental patients for long-term follow-up. Objective: Therefore, we asked whether the 1) clinical and 2) radiographic outcomes of Bryan cervical disc prosthesis were better than that of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) at single site, and whether the 3) occurrences of heterotopic ossifications (HOs) were associated to the function loss in the long-term follow-up. Methods:?A total of 120 patients with cervical disc disease were randomly assigned to two groups (Bryan or ACDF), and 60-month follow-up is available for all the 120 patients. Clinical outcomes were assessed using Odom’s criteria, visual analogue pain scale (VAS) and Neck Disability Index (NDI). Radiographs were measured to determine the radiographic outcomes and occurrences of heterotopic ossifications (HOs).?Results: The clinical outcomes are not significantly between the two groups (VAS, P = 0.7253;NDI, P = 0.5528). The radiographic outcome ofBryancervical disc prosthesis is better than that of ACDF group at the index level (P < 0.05). 36 (60%) patients ofBryangroup developed heterotopic ossification. But, there is not a significant association between HOs and the loss of movement at the replacement level. Conclusions: The Bryan artificial disc replacement compares favorably to ACDF for the treatment of patients with 1-level cervical disc disease. And theBryandisc may delay adjacent level degeneration by preserving preoperative kinematics at adjacent levels in oriental patients.
文摘Objective To compare the clinical outcomes of Bryan disc replacement with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) in patients with cervical spondylopathy. Methods Sixteen patients underwent Bryan cervicaldisc replacement (A group) ,and
文摘目的:收集并分析SCI收录的关于Bryan颈椎间盘置换术与颈前路减压椎间融合术(anterior cervical discectomy and fusion,ACDF)术后疗效比较的文献,对Bryan颈椎间盘置换术和ACDF术后疗效进行系统评价。方法:检索Pubmed、Medline、Embase、Ovid、Cochrane Library等数据库。入选文献均为临床研究;各研究的干预组(治疗组)术式为Bryan颈椎间盘置换术,对照组术式为ACDF;治疗组和对照组例数均不小于10;术后疗效评价包括颈部功能残障指数(neck disability index,NDI),相应节段运动范围(range of motion,ROM)等常见指标。结果:共4篇文献符合纳入标准。纳入人数共588人,干预组303例,对照组285例;术后2年内NDI合并权重均差(weighted mean difference,WMD)为-0.39(95%CI,-1.56～0.78),P>0.05。术后2年内相应颈椎节段运动范围(ROM)合并WMD值为8.95(95%CI,7.01～10.89),P<0.05。结论:Bryan间盘置换术在术后2年内保留颈椎节段活动方面优于ACDF,尚没有足够证据表明Bryan间盘置换术术后2年内NDI优于ACDF。
文摘目的探讨颈椎前路减压植骨融合术(anterior cervical decompression and fusion,ACDF)与Bryan人工颈椎椎间盘置换术(artificial cervical disc replacement,ACDR)两种手术方式用于治疗脊髓型颈椎病及神经根型颈椎病的近期和远期疗效。方法系统分析我院2010年11月至2012年11月70例(70个节段)脊髓型或神经根型颈椎病患者病例资料,将70例(70个节段)脊髓型或神经根型颈椎病患者,通过随机数字表法随机分为ACDF组(35例)及Bryan组(35例)。通过分析术前及术后随访12个月的Odom's标准评分、活动度(range of motion,ROM)、日本骨科协会(Japanese orthopaedic association,JOA)、健康调查简表(the MOS item short from health survey,SF-36)及颈椎残障功能指数(neck disability index,NDI)观察指标的差异,同时对随访12个月的上述各项指标进行两组间比较,比较两者疗效,分析两种术式的优点及他们产生的问题。结果两种手术方式都能取得明确疗效,治疗后患者症状明显缓解(P<0.05),两种术式在创伤、出血量等方面差异性不显著(P>0.05);JOA评分及SF-36评分两者差异性不显著(P>0.05);而在12个月随访ROM评估及NDI比较有差异,Bryan组数据优于ACDF组,差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05);Bryan组在Odom's评分中因减压不彻底及异位骨化,有2例等级为差,ACDF组则为0例。结论 Bryan人工颈椎椎间盘置换术在减少颈椎临近节段退变上优于ACDF,短中期疗效优于ACDF,但Bryan人工颈椎椎间盘置换术同时存在减压不彻底及异位骨化等并发症,远期疗效不如ACDF。
