Quote:
Originally Posted by nolefan954
For anyone interested - I found this regarding MRI's and visualization restrictions of ADRs. It does seem the Bryan has benefits versus the Prodisc-C in this regard.
Magnetic resonance imaging clarity of the Bryan, Prodisc-C, Prestige LP, and PCM cervical arthroplasty devices.“ CONCLUSIONS.: Postoperative visualization of neural structures and adjacent levels after cervical arthroplasty is variable among current available devices. Devices containing nontitanium metals (cobalt-chrome-molybdenum alloys in the PCM and Prodisc-C) prevent accurate postoperative assessment with magnetic resonance imaging at the surgical and adjacent levels. Titanium devices, with or without polyethylene (Bryan disc or Prestige LP), allow for satisfactory monitoring of the adjacent and operated levels. This information is crucial for any surgeon who wishes to assess adequacy of neural decompression and where monitoring of adjacent levels is desired.
|
You are reading and that is good in my limited opinon. Several journal articles cite the above difference, so I agree with the above in general. I am not MRI trained.
There are trade-offs, surgery v. no surgery, waiting time for symptoms to decrease, type of disc replacement, ...
A second medical opinon for surgery will encourage most patients to get serious about it. We can live with a lot of annoyance in life.
You mentioned ProDisc v. Bryan. There are stats/data on the FDA sites, but I did not compare them. The 2012 AANS/CNS annual meeting abstracts might compare them, but it is impossible to put it into a table with the software used on most any internet forum.
The type of disc replacement is of interest. You may want to browse through the FDA documents:
Bryan - FDA
Link
The FDA clinical trials compared the Bryan to ACDF (fusion).
2 year overall success rates
page 22
95.5% Bryan
85.4% ACDF (Control)
May I also suggest
Upadhyaya, Wu, Trost, Haid, Traynelis, Tay, Coric, Mummaneni
Analysis of the three United States Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption cervical arthroplasty trials
Journal of Neurosurgery and Spine, 2012
Sasso, RC, ...
Clinical Outcomes of Bryan Cervical Disc Arthroplasty A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled, Single Site Trial With 48-Month Follow-up
Journal of Spinal Disorders and Techniques
("
During the 48 months of follow-up at our institution we also report 6 secondary surgeries in our control group (ACDF) and only 1 in our investigational group (Bryan). Of the 6 surgeries in the control group performed, 3 or 12% to date were for adjacent level degenerative disease and 1 or 4% for remote level degenerative disc disease. The remaining 2 surgeries were performed on the same patient for a pseudarthrosis. In the investigational group there was only 1 secondary surgery performed to date for adjacent level disease 5%"
Sasso RC, Anderson PA, Riew KD, Heller JG. Results of cervical arthroplasty compared with anterior discectomy and fusion: four-year clinical outcomes in a prospective, randomized controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011 Sep 21;93(18):1684-92.
Heller JG, Sasso RC, Papadopoulos SM, Anderson PA, Fessler RG, Hacker RJ, Coric D, Cauthen JC, Riew DK. Comparison of BRYAN cervical disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical decompression and fusion: clinical and radiographic results of a randomized, controlled, clinical trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009 Jan 15;34(2):101-7. (two year)
I will try to post something about heterotopic ossification in the Articles section.
---------------
slackwater_sf