Literature DB >> 18774751

Results of the prospective, randomized, controlled multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study of the ProDisc-C total disc replacement versus anterior discectomy and fusion for the treatment of 1-level symptomatic cervical disc disease.

Daniel Murrey1, Michael Janssen, Rick Delamarter, Jeffrey Goldstein, Jack Zigler, Bobby Tay, Bruce Darden.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Cervical total disc replacement (TDR) is intended to address radicular pain and preserve functional motion between two vertebral bodies in patients with symptomatic cervical disc disease (SCDD).
PURPOSE: The purpose of this trial is to compare the safety and efficacy of cervical TDR, ProDisc-C (Synthes Spine Company, L.P., West Chester, PA), to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) surgery for the treatment of one-level SCDD between C3 and C7. STUDY DESIGN/
SETTING: The study was conducted at 13 sites. A noninferiority design with a 1:1 randomization was used. PATIENT SAMPLE: Two hundred nine patients were randomized and treated (106 ACDF; 103 ProDisc-C). OUTCOME MEASURES: Visual analog scale (VAS) pain and intensity (neck and arm), VAS satisfaction, neck disability index (NDI), neurological exam, device success, adverse event occurrence, and short form-36 (SF-36) standardized questionnaires.
METHODS: A prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial was performed. Patients were enrolled and treated in accordance with the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved protocol. Patients were assessed pre- and postoperatively at six weeks, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months.
RESULTS: Demographics were similar between the two patient groups (ProDisc-C: 42.1+/-8.4 years, 44.7% males; Fusion: 43.5 +/- 7.1 years, 46.2% males). The most commonly treated level was C5-C6 (ProDisc-C: 56.3%; Fusion=57.5%). NDI and SF-36 scores were significantly less compared with presurgery scores at all follow-up visits for both the treatment groups (p<.0001). VAS neck pain intensity and frequency as well as VAS arm pain intensity and frequency were statistically lower at all follow-up timepoints compared with preoperative levels (p<.0001) but were not different between treatments. Neurologic success (improvement or maintenance) was achieved at 24 months in 90.9% of ProDisc-C and 88.0% of Fusion patients (p=.638). Results show that at 24 months postoperatively, 84.4% of ProDisc-C patients achieved a more than or equal to 4 degrees of motion or maintained motion relative to preoperative baseline at the operated level. There was a statistically significant difference in the number of secondary surgeries with 8.5% of Fusion patients needing a re-operation, revision, or supplemental fixation within the 24 month postoperative period compared with 1.8% of ProDisc-C patients (p=.033). At 24 months, there was a statistically significant difference in medication usage with 89.9% of ProDisc-C patients not on strong narcotics or muscle relaxants, compared with 81.5% of Fusion patients.
CONCLUSIONS: The results of this clinical trial demonstrate that ProDisc-C is a safe and effective surgical treatment for patients with disabling cervical radiculopathy because of single-level disease. By all primary and secondary measures evaluated, clinical outcomes after ProDisc-C implantation were either equivalent or superior to those same clinical outcomes after Fusion.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18774751     DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2008.05.006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine J        ISSN: 1529-9430            Impact factor:   4.166


  142 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.  The use of self-mating PEEK as an alternative bearing material for cervical disc arthroplasty: a comparison of different simulator inputs and tribological environments.

Authors:  Tim Brown; Qi-Bin Bao
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2012-03-14       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 3.  Cervical spine alignment in disc arthroplasty: should we change our perspective?

Authors:  Alberto Di Martino; Rocco Papalia; Erika Albo; Leonardo Cortesi; Luca Denaro; Vincenzo Denaro
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-10-06       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 4.  Adjacent segment disease perspective and review of the literature.

Authors:  Fanor M Saavedra-Pozo; Renato A M Deusdara; Edward C Benzel
Journal:  Ochsner J       Date:  2014

Review 5.  Current status of bone graft options for anterior interbody fusion of the cervical and lumbar spine.

Authors:  Anthony Minh Tien Chau; Lileane Liang Xu; Johnny Ho-Yin Wong; Ralph Jasper Mobbs
Journal:  Neurosurg Rev       Date:  2013-06-07       Impact factor: 3.042

6.  Cervical total disc replacement C5/6.

Authors:  Petr Suchomel; Pavel Barsa
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 3.134

7.  Cervical canal stenosis and adjacent segment degeneration after anterior cervical arthrodesis.

Authors:  Jing Tao Zhang; Jun Ming Cao; Fan Tao Meng; Yong Shen
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-04-23       Impact factor: 3.134

8.  Is cervical disc arthroplasty superior to fusion for treatment of symptomatic cervical disc disease? A meta-analysis.

Authors:  Si Yin; Xiao Yu; Shuangli Zhou; Zhanhai Yin; Yusheng Qiu
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2013-02-07       Impact factor: 4.176

9.  Five-year results of cervical disc prostheses in the SWISSspine registry.

Authors:  Emin Aghayev; Christian Bärlocher; Friedrich Sgier; Mustafa Hasdemir; Klaus F Steinsiepe; Frank Wernli; François Porchet; Oliver Hausmann; Aymen Ramadan; Gianluca Maestretti; Uwe Ebeling; Michal Neukamp; Christoph Röder
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-04-13       Impact factor: 3.134

10.  Motion path of the instant center of rotation in the cervical spine during in vivo dynamic flexion-extension: implications for artificial disc design and evaluation of motion quality after arthrodesis.

Authors:  William Anderst; Emma Baillargeon; William Donaldson; Joon Lee; James Kang
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2013-05-01       Impact factor: 3.468

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.