Literature DB >> 21415812

Lumbar disc arthroplasty with Maverick disc versus stand-alone interbody fusion: a prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter investigational device exemption trial.

Matthew F Gornet1, J Kenneth Burkus, Randall F Dryer, John H Peloza.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: Randomized, controlled, multicenter, investigational device exemption trial.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the safety and effectiveness of the first two-piece, metal-on-metal lumbar disc prosthesis for treating patients with single-level degenerative disc disease. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: For patients with degenerative disc disease unresponsive to conservative measures, lumbar disc arthroplasty provides an alternative to fusion designed to relieve persistent discogenic pain and maintain motion.
METHODS: After 2:1 randomization, 577 patients were treated in either the investigational group (405), receiving lumbar disc arthroplasty, or the control group (172), receiving anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Patients were evaluated preoperatively, at surgery/discharge, and at 1.5, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after surgery. The primary study endpoint was overall success, a composite measure of safety and effectiveness as recommended by the Food and Drug Administration and defined in the protocol.
RESULTS: Both treatment groups demonstrated significant improvements compared with preoperative status. The investigational group had statistically superior outcomes (P < 0.05) at all postoperative evaluations in Oswestry Disability Index, back pain, and Short Form-36 Physical Component Summary scores as well as patient satisfaction. Investigational patients had longer surgical times (P < 0.001) and greater blood loss (P < 0.001) than did control patients; however, hospitalization stays were similar for both groups. Investigational patients had fewer implant or implant/surgical procedure-related adverse events (P < 0.001). Return-to-work intervals were reduced for investigational patients. Disc height and segmental angular motion were maintained throughout the study in the investigational group. In the investigational group, overall success superiority was found when compared to the control group as defined by the Food and Drug Administration Investigational Device Exemption protocol.
CONCLUSION: The investigational group consistently demonstrated statistical superiority versus fusion on key clinical outcomes including improved physical function, reduced pain, and earlier return to work.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21415812     DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e318217668f

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


  36 in total

1.  [Spinal column: implants and revisions].

Authors:  S M Krieg; H S Meyer; B Meyer
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2016-03       Impact factor: 0.955

2.  Treatment of discogenic back pain with autologous bone marrow concentrate injection with minimum two year follow-up.

Authors:  Kenneth Pettine; Richard Suzuki; Theodore Sand; Matthew Murphy
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2015-07-10       Impact factor: 3.075

Review 3.  Lumbar disc replacement surgery-successes and obstacles to widespread adoption.

Authors:  Stephan N Salzmann; Nicolas Plais; Jennifer Shue; Federico P Girardi
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2017-06

4.  Sexual activity after spine surgery: a systematic review.

Authors:  Azeem Tariq Malik; Nikhil Jain; Jeffery Kim; Safdar N Khan; Elizabeth Yu
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2018-05-23       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  Clinical outcomes of treatment with cage-shaped demineralized bone plus local bone grafts vs. autogenous iliac crest bone grafts in instrumented single-level lumbar fusion: A retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Chen-Guang Zhao; Jie Qin; Xin Wang; Gang Xu; Yong Jia; Yu-Cheng Guan; Xiang Mou; Hua Yuan
Journal:  Exp Ther Med       Date:  2019-11-07       Impact factor: 2.447

6.  Complications and Rates of Subsequent Lumbar Surgery Following Lumbar Total Disc Arthroplasty and Lumbar Fusion.

Authors:  Claire D Eliasberg; Michael P Kelly; Remi M Ajiboye; Nelson F SooHoo
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 3.468

Review 7.  Which design and biomaterial factors affect clinical wear performance of total disc replacements? A systematic review.

Authors:  Sai Y Veruva; Marla J Steinbeck; Jeffrey Toth; Dominik D Alexander; Steven M Kurtz
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2014-12       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 8.  Total disc replacement versus fusion for lumbar degenerative disc disease: a systematic review of overlapping meta-analyses.

Authors:  Fan Ding; Zhiwei Jia; Zhigang Zhao; Lin Xie; Xinfeng Gao; Dezhang Ma; Ming Liu
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2016-07-23       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 9.  [Operative options for failed back surgery syndrome].

Authors:  S M Krieg; B Meyer
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2016-09       Impact factor: 1.087

10.  Optimizing success with lumbar disc arthroplasty.

Authors:  Matthew F Gornet; Francine Schranck; Nicholas D Wharton; Douglas P Beall; Elizabeth Jones; Mark E Myers; John A Hipp
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2014-04-26       Impact factor: 3.134

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.