gms | German Medical Science

57th Annual Meeting of the German Society of Neurosurgery
Joint Meeting with the Japanese Neurosurgical Society

German Society of Neurosurgery (DGNC)

11 - 14 May, Essen

Three-year long-term results of cervical disc prostheses

Drei-Jahres-Langzeitergebnisse zervikaler Bandscheibenprothesen

Meeting Abstract

Search Medline for

  • corresponding author R. Hahne - Klinik für Neurochirurgie, Otto-von-Guericke Universität, Magdeburg
  • B. Jöllenbeck - Klinik für Neurochirurgie, Otto-von-Guericke Universität, Magdeburg
  • R. Firsching - Klinik für Neurochirurgie, Otto-von-Guericke Universität, Magdeburg

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Neurochirurgie. Japanische Gesellschaft für Neurochirurgie. 57. Jahrestagung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Neurochirurgie e.V. (DGNC), Joint Meeting mit der Japanischen Gesellschaft für Neurochirurgie. Essen, 11.-14.05.2006. Düsseldorf, Köln: German Medical Science; 2006. DocFR.02.05

The electronic version of this article is the complete one and can be found online at:

Published: May 8, 2006

© 2006 Hahne et al.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( You are free: to Share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work, provided the original author and source are credited.



Objective: While the standard cervical disc surgery is fusion using an anterior approach artifical cervical discs allowing far nearly physiological segmental motion have been implanted recently with increased frequency. So far however no long-term follow-up has been reported yet.

Methods: From May 2002 until October 2005 117 prostheses (BRYANTM cervical disc system) were implanted in 112 patients. A follow-up of at least 3 years was possible in 25 patients operated in 2002 (14 men and 11 women). Findings were rated by the ODOM criterias. The follow up of the range of motion was based on lateral conventional x-rays.

Results: Resolution of pain and neurological disorders were excellent and good in 17 of the examined patients, 6 patients were graded fair and 2 poor. X-ray follow-up displayed preserved segmental motion in 18 out of 25 patients. Cervical spines with preserved function showed a range of motion of the inserted prosthesis ranging from 2 to 17 degrees (mean 9,2 degrees). In 3 cases we noted complete loss of motion because of spondylotic bridging behind the implant. In 4 cases motion was less than two degrees without spondylotic bridging. No infection, dislocation or implant failure was noted in any patient at this 3-year follow-up.

Conclusions: Implantation of a cervical disc prosthesis appears to bear no increased risk as compared to conventional fusion. The preservation of motion, however, is not possible in all cases as after an interval of three years, approximately 80% of our patients exhibited preserved motion.