Early clinical and biomechanical results following cervical arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECT: Spinal arthroplasty may become the next gold standard for the treatment of degenerative cervical spine disease. This new modality must be studied rigorously to ensure in vivo efficacy and safety. The authors review the preliminary clinical experience and radiographic outcomes following insertion of the Bryan Cervical Disc Prosthesis (Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Memphis, TN). METHODS: This prospective cohort study included 26 patients undergoing single- or two-level implantation of the Bryan artificial cervical disc for treatment of cervical degenerative disc disease resulting in radiculopathy and/or myelopathy. Radiographic and clinical assessments were made preoperatively 1.5, 3 months, and at 6, 12, and up to 24 months postoperatively. The Neck Disability Index (NDI) and Short Form-36 (SF-36) questionnaires were used to assess pain and functional outcomes. Segmental sagittal rotation from C2-3 to C6-7 was measured using quantitative motion analysis software. A total of 30 Bryan discs were placed in 26 patients. A single-level procedure was performed in 22 patients and a two-level procedure in the other four. Follow-up duration ranged from 1.5 to 27 months, with a mean duration of 12.3 months. A statistically significant improvement in the mean NDI scores was seen between pre- and late postoperative follow-up evaluations. A trend toward improvement in the SF-36 physical component was also found. Motion was preserved in the treated spinal segments (mean range of motion 7.8 degrees ) for up to 24 months postsurgery. The relative contribution of each segment to overall spinal sagittal rotation differed depending on whether the disc was placed at C5-6 or C6-7. Overall cervical motion (C2-7) was moderately increased on late follow-up evaluations. CONCLUSIONS: The Bryan artificial cervical disc provided in vivo functional spinal motion at the treated level. Overall cervical spinal motion was not significantly altered. Sagittal rotation did not change significantly at any level after surgery.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".