{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2023,8,10]],"date-time":"2023-08-10T07:57:46Z","timestamp":1691654266251},"reference-count":25,"publisher":"SLACK, Inc.","issue":"2","content-domain":{"domain":[],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["Orthopedics"],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2014,2]]},"abstract":"<jats:p>\n            The safety and effectiveness of 2 implantation systems for single-segment cervical disk replacement\u2014the Bryan Cervical Disc System (Medtronic Inc, Minneapolis, Minnesota) and the ACCEL system (Medtronic Inc)\u2014have not been clinically compared. A prospective, nonrandomized controlled study in consecutive patients with a minimum 2-year follow-up was performed. Fifty patients with single-level cervical disk degeneration who responded poorly to conservative treatment and underwent Bryan Cervical Disc replacement were involved. Fifty patients were included (24 in group A [Bryan Cervical Disc System] and 26 in group B [ACCEL system]).The patients\u2019 visual analog scale scores, Neck Disability Index (NDI) scores, Short Form 36 (SF-36) scores, Odom scores, operative time, blood loss, and complications were compared. Patients\u2019 baseline statuses were similar (\n            <jats:italic>P<\/jats:italic>\n            &gt;.05). Visual analog scale for neck and arm pain, NDI, and SF-36 were significantly improved postoperatively (\n            <jats:italic>P<\/jats:italic>\n            &lt;.05) in both groups, and no clinical differences were found between the groups (\n            <jats:italic>P<\/jats:italic>\n            &gt;.05). All Odom scores were better than good. Mean operative time and average blood loss in group A (173\u00b142.5 minutes and 250\u00b1159.8 mL, respectively), were both significantly higher than the values in group B (137.5\u00b119.3 minutes and 138.1\u00b186.7 mL, respectively) (\n            <jats:italic>P<\/jats:italic>\n            &lt;.05). Complications included intraoperative bleeding, temporary throat discomfort, and slight migration of the prosthesis; there was no significant difference in the total complication rates between the 2 groups (\n            <jats:italic>P<\/jats:italic>\n            &gt;.05). The 2 implantation systems displayed equal clinical effectiveness and safety, but the ACCEL system appears to have the advantages of shorter operative time and less blood loss.\n          <\/jats:p>","DOI":"10.3928\/01477447-20140124-20","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2014,2,18]],"date-time":"2014-02-18T16:56:39Z","timestamp":1392742599000},"source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":7,"title":["Clinical Comparison of 2 Implantation Systems for Single-level Cervical Disk Replacement"],"prefix":"10.3928","volume":"37","author":[{"given":"Rui","family":"Shi","sequence":"first","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Juan","family":"Li","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Hao","family":"Liu","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Chen","family":"Ding","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Tao","family":"Hu","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Tao","family":"Li","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Quan","family":"Gong","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]}],"member":"2308","reference":[{"key":"e_1_3_1_2_2","first-page":"CD009173","article-title":"Arthroplasty versus fusion in single-level cervical degenerative disc disease","volume":"9","author":"Boselie TF","year":"2012","unstructured":"Boselie TF, Willems PC, van Mameren H, de Bie R, Benzel EC, van Santbrink H. Arthroplasty versus fusion in single-level cervical degenerative disc disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012; 9:CD009173.","journal-title":"Cochrane Database Syst Rev"},{"key":"e_1_3_1_3_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1007\/s11999-013-2830-0"},{"key":"e_1_3_1_4_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1097\/BRS.0b013e3182163814"},{"key":"e_1_3_1_5_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1371\/journal.pone.0035032"},{"key":"e_1_3_1_6_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1055\/s-0031-1298610"},{"key":"e_1_3_1_7_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1097\/BRS.0b013e31826cb8f5"},{"key":"e_1_3_1_8_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1371\/journal.pone.0043407"},{"key":"e_1_3_1_9_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.spinee.2012.11.032"},{"key":"e_1_3_1_10_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1055\/s-0031-1298606"},{"key":"e_1_3_1_11_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1097\/BRS.0b013e3181aa643b"},{"key":"e_1_3_1_12_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.3171\/2010.3.FOCUS1046"},{"key":"e_1_3_1_13_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1097\/BSD.0b013e3181bb8568"},{"key":"e_1_3_1_14_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1097\/BRS.0b013e31818ee263"},{"key":"e_1_3_1_15_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1097\/BSD.0b013e3180310534"},{"key":"e_1_3_1_16_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1007\/s00586-010-1583-7"},{"key":"e_1_3_1_17_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.3171\/2012.9.SPINE12555"},{"key":"e_1_3_1_18_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1097\/BRS.0b013e31822174b3"},{"key":"e_1_3_1_19_2","unstructured":"Delamarter RB Zigler J. Five-year reoperation rates cervical total disc replacement versus fusion: results of a prospective randomized clinical trial [published online ahead of print November 2 2012]. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) ."},{"key":"e_1_3_1_20_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.2106\/JBJS.J.00476"},{"key":"e_1_3_1_21_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1097\/01.brs.0000257547.17822.14"},{"key":"e_1_3_1_22_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.3171\/2011.8.SPINE11273"},{"key":"e_1_3_1_23_2","unstructured":"Park SB Kim KJ Jin YJ Kim HJ Jahng TA Chung CK. X-ray based kinematic analysis of cervical spine according to prosthesis designs: analysis of the Mobi C Bryan PCM and Prestige LP [published online ahead of print November 7 2013]. J Spinal Disord Tech ."},{"key":"e_1_3_1_24_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1007\/s00264-008-0655-3"},{"key":"e_1_3_1_25_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1097\/BSD.0b013e318150d121"},{"key":"e_1_3_1_26_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1227\/01.NEU.0000153216.68321.C2"}],"container-title":["Orthopedics"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/www.healio.com\/doiresolver?doi=10.3928\/01477447-20140124-20","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2023,5,3]],"date-time":"2023-05-03T08:00:59Z","timestamp":1683100859000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/journals.healio.com\/doi\/10.3928\/01477447-20140124-20"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2014,2]]},"references-count":25,"journal-issue":{"issue":"2","published-print":{"date-parts":[[2014,2]]}},"alternative-id":["10.3928\/01477447-20140124-20"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3928\/01477447-20140124-20","relation":{},"ISSN":["0147-7447","1938-2367"],"issn-type":[{"value":"0147-7447","type":"print"},{"value":"1938-2367","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2014,2]]}}}