Literature DB >> 17495770

Results of the prospective, randomized, multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study of the ProDisc-L total disc replacement versus circumferential fusion for the treatment of 1-level degenerative disc disease.

Jack Zigler1, Rick Delamarter, Jeffrey M Spivak, Raymond J Linovitz, Guy O Danielson, Thomas T Haider, Frank Cammisa, Jim Zuchermann, Richard Balderston, Scott Kitchel, Kevin Foley, Robert Watkins, David Bradford, James Yue, Hansen Yuan, Harry Herkowitz, Doug Geiger, John Bendo, Timothy Peppers, Barton Sachs, Federico Girardi, Michael Kropf, Jeff Goldstein.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: A prospective, randomized, multicenter, Food and Drug Administration-regulated Investigational Device Exemption clinical trial.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the ProDisc-L (Synthes Spine, West Chester, PA) lumbar total disc replacement compared to circumferential spinal fusion for the treatment of discogenic pain at 1 vertebral level between L3 and S1. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: As part of the Investigational Device Exemption clinical trial, favorable single center results of lumbar total disc replacement with the ProDisc-L have been reported previously.
METHODS: Two hundred eighty-six (286) patients were treated on protocol. Patients were evaluated before and after surgery, at 6 weeks, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. Evaluation at each visit included patient self-assessments, physical and neurologic examinations, and radiographic evaluation.
RESULTS: Safety of ProDisc-L implantation was demonstrated with 0% major complications. At 24 months, 91.8% of investigational and 84.5% of control patients reported improvement in the Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI]) from preoperative levels, and 77.2% of investigational and 64.8% of control patients met the > or =15% Oswestry Disability Index improvement criteria. Overall neurologic success in the investigational group was superior to the control group (91.2% investigational and 81.4% control; P = 0.0341). At 6 weeks and 3 months follow-up time points, the ProDisc-L patients recorded SF-36 Health Survey scores significantly higher than the control group (P = 0.018, P = 0.0036, respectively). The visual analog scale pain assessment showed statistically significant improvement from preoperative levels regardless of treatment (P < 0.0001). Visual analog scale patient satisfaction at 24 months showed a statistically significant difference favoring investigational patients over the control group (P = 0.015). Radiographic range of motion was maintained within a normal functional range in 93.7% of investigational patients and averaged 7.7 degrees.
CONCLUSIONS: ProDisc-L has been found to be safe and efficacious. In properly chosen patients, ProDisc-L has been shown to be superior to circumferential fusion by multiple clinical criteria.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17495770     DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e318054e377

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)        ISSN: 0362-2436            Impact factor:   3.468


  116 in total

Review 1.  Cervical and lumbar spinal arthroplasty: clinical review.

Authors:  T D Uschold; D Fusco; R Germain; L M Tumialan; S W Chang
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2011-10-27       Impact factor: 3.825

2.  Predictors of outcome after surgery with disc prosthesis and rehabilitation in patients with chronic low back pain and degenerative disc: 2-year follow-up.

Authors:  Christian Hellum; Lars Gunnar Johnsen; Øyvind Gjertsen; Linda Berg; Gesche Neckelmann; Oliver Grundnes; Ivar Rossvoll; Jan Sture Skouen; Jens Ivar Brox; Kjersti Storheim
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2012-01-13       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  The impact of implantation technique on frontal and sagittal alignment in total lumbar disc replacement: a comparison of anterior versus oblique implantation.

Authors:  René Schmidt; U Obertacke; J Nothwang; C Ulrich; J Nowicki; H Reichel; B Cakir
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2010-05-21       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  Influence of lumbar intervertebral disc degeneration on the outcome of total lumbar disc replacement: a prospective clinical, histological, X-ray and MRI investigation.

Authors:  Christoph J Siepe; Franziska Heider; Elisabeth Haas; Wolfgang Hitzl; Ulrike Szeimies; Axel Stäbler; Christoph Weiler; Andreas G Nerlich; Michael H Mayer
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2012-05-29       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  Clinical outcomes after treatment with disc prostheses in three lumbar segments compared to one- or two segments.

Authors:  Svante Berg; Nina Gillberg-Aronsson
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2015-09-30

6.  Impact of iliac crest bone graft harvesting on fusion rates and postoperative pain during instrumented posterolateral lumbar fusion.

Authors:  Constantin Schizas; Dimitrios Triantafyllopoulos; Victor Kosmopoulos; Kosmas Stafylas
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2007-08-28       Impact factor: 3.075

Review 7.  Design concepts in lumbar total disc arthroplasty.

Authors:  Fabio Galbusera; Chiara M Bellini; Thomas Zweig; Stephen Ferguson; Manuela T Raimondi; Claudio Lamartina; Marco Brayda-Bruno; Maurizio Fornari
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2008-10-23       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 8.  [Adjacent segment movement after monosegmental total disc replacement and monosegmental fusion of segments L4/5].

Authors:  M Däxle; T Kocak; F Lattig; H Reichel; B Cakir
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 1.087

9.  One and two level posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) using an expandable, stand-alone, interbody fusion device: a VariLift® case series.

Authors:  Rebecca Barrett-Tuck; Diana Del Monaco; Jon E Block
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2017-03

10.  [Current short- and long-term results of lumbar disc replacement : update 2008].

Authors:  B Wiedenhöfer; V Ewerbeck; A J Suda; C Carstens
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 0.955

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.