STUDY DESIGN/ SETTING: Prospective, randomized, 3-center, clinical trial. OBJECTIVE: To prospectively compare the outcomes of cervical arthroplasty with the BRYAN Cervical Disc Prosthesis (Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc, Memphis, TN) to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Surgical treatment of cervical disc pathology commonly involves techniques that employ discectomy and fusion (ACDF). This "gold-standard" technique has demonstrated good clinical and radiographic outcomes. Common adverse effects of this procedure are associated with the adjacent level degeneration and bone-graft harvest. Several investigators have independently reported successful short-term outcomes with the BRYAN Cervical Disc Prosthesis. In addition, a significant body of knowledge has been collected regarding the wear patterns and adjacent level effects of this device in human and animal models. METHODS: As part of an FDA IDE trial, 3 centers collected prospective outcomes data on 115 patients randomized in a 1:1 ratio toACDF (Control group) or arthroplasty with the BRYAN Cervical Disc Prosthesis (Investigational group). RESULTS:Demographic and surgical data were generally similar in the 2 populations. Outcomes data collected at routine postoperative intervals for 24 months demonstrated that the Investigational group had statistically significant (P<0.05) improvements as assessed by the Neck Disability Index, the Neck Pain Score, and SF-36 Physical component scores. The improvement in the Mental Component Subscore values for the BRYAN and control groups was equivalent at 24 months (P=0.055). Arm pain relief was similar in both groups (P=0.152). During the course of the 2-year follow-up, 4 patients in the Control group required surgical intervention and 3 patients in the Investigational group required ACDF for adjacent level disease. CONCLUSIONS: At 24 months, cervical arthroplasty with the BRYAN Cervical Disc Prosthesis compares favorably with ACDF as defined by standard outcomes scores.
RCT Entities:
STUDY DESIGN/ SETTING: Prospective, randomized, 3-center, clinical trial. OBJECTIVE: To prospectively compare the outcomes of cervical arthroplasty with the BRYAN Cervical Disc Prosthesis (Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc, Memphis, TN) to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Surgical treatment of cervical disc pathology commonly involves techniques that employ discectomy and fusion (ACDF). This "gold-standard" technique has demonstrated good clinical and radiographic outcomes. Common adverse effects of this procedure are associated with the adjacent level degeneration and bone-graft harvest. Several investigators have independently reported successful short-term outcomes with the BRYAN Cervical Disc Prosthesis. In addition, a significant body of knowledge has been collected regarding the wear patterns and adjacent level effects of this device in human and animal models. METHODS: As part of an FDA IDE trial, 3 centers collected prospective outcomes data on 115 patients randomized in a 1:1 ratio to ACDF (Control group) or arthroplasty with the BRYAN Cervical Disc Prosthesis (Investigational group). RESULTS: Demographic and surgical data were generally similar in the 2 populations. Outcomes data collected at routine postoperative intervals for 24 months demonstrated that the Investigational group had statistically significant (P<0.05) improvements as assessed by the Neck Disability Index, the Neck Pain Score, and SF-36 Physical component scores. The improvement in the Mental Component Subscore values for the BRYAN and control groups was equivalent at 24 months (P=0.055). Arm pain relief was similar in both groups (P=0.152). During the course of the 2-year follow-up, 4 patients in the Control group required surgical intervention and 3 patients in the Investigational group required ACDF for adjacent level disease. CONCLUSIONS: At 24 months, cervical arthroplasty with the BRYAN Cervical Disc Prosthesis compares favorably with ACDF as defined by standard outcomes scores.
Authors: Toon F M Boselie; Paul C Willems; Henk van Mameren; Rob de Bie; Edward C Benzel; Henk van Santbrink Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2015-05-21