Literature DB >> 21699471

Prospective, randomized, multicenter study of cervical arthroplasty: 269 patients from the Kineflex|C artificial disc investigational device exemption study with a minimum 2-year follow-up: clinical article.

Domagoj Coric1, Pierce D Nunley, Richard D Guyer, David Musante, Cameron N Carmody, Charles R Gordon, Carl Lauryssen, Donna D Ohnmeiss, Margaret O Boltes.   

Abstract

OBJECT: Cervical total disc replacement (CTDR) represents a relatively novel procedure intended to address some of the shortcomings associated with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) by preserving motion at the treated level. This prospective, randomized, multicenter study evaluates the safety and efficacy of a new metal-on-metal CTDR implant (Kineflex|C) by comparing it with ACDF in the treatment of single-level spondylosis with radiculopathy.
METHODS: The study was a prospective, randomized US FDA Investigational Device Exemption (IDE) pivotal trial conducted at 21 centers across the US. The primary clinical outcome measures included the Neck Disability Index (NDI), visual analog scale (VAS) scores, and a composite measure of clinical success. Patients were randomized to CTDR using the Kineflex|C (SpinalMotion, Inc.) cervical artificial disc or ACDF using structural allograft and an anterior plate.
RESULTS: A total of 269 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to either CTDR (136 patients) or to ACDF (133 patients). There were no significant differences between the CTDR and ACDF groups when comparing operative time, blood loss, length of hospital stay, or the reoperation rate at the index level. The overall success rate was significantly greater in the CTDR group (85%) compared with the ACDF group (71%) (p = 0.05). In both groups, the mean NDI scores improved significantly by 6 weeks after surgery and remained significantly improved throughout the 24-month follow-up (p < 0.0001). Similarly, the VAS pain scores improved significantly by 6 weeks and remained significantly improved through the 24-month follow-up (p < 0.0001). The range of motion (ROM) in the CTDR group decreased at 3 months but was significantly greater than the preoperative mean at 12- and 24-month follow-up. The ROM in the ACDF group was significantly reduced by 3 months and remained so throughout the follow-up. Adjacent-level degeneration was also evaluated in both groups from preoperatively to 2-year follow-up and was classified as none, mild, moderate, or severe. Preoperatively, there were no significant differences between groups when evaluating the different levels of adjacent-level degeneration. At the 2-year follow-up, there were significantly more patients in the ACDF group with severe adjacent-level radiographic changes (p < 0.0001). However, there were no significant differences between groups in adjacent-level reoperation rate (7.6% for the Kineflex|C group and 6.1% for the ACDF group).
CONCLUSIONS: Cervical total disc replacement allows for neural decompression and clinical results comparable to ACDF. Kineflex|C was associated with a significantly greater overall success rate than fusion while maintaining motion at the index level. Furthermore, there were significantly fewer Kineflex|C patients showing severe adjacent-level radiographic changes at the 2-year follow-up. These results from a prospective, randomized study support that Kineflex|C CTDR is a viable alternative to ACDF in select patients with cervical radiculopathy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21699471     DOI: 10.3171/2011.5.SPINE10769

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Neurosurg Spine        ISSN: 1547-5646


  103 in total

Review 1.  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

2.  Cervical adjacent segment pathology following fusion: Is it due to fusion?

Authors:  Philip Rosenthal; Kee D Kim
Journal:  World J Orthop       Date:  2013-07-18

3.  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

4.  Prospective, Randomized Comparison of One-level Mobi-C Cervical Total Disc Replacement vs. Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: Results at 5-year Follow-up.

Authors:  Michael S Hisey; Jack E Zigler; Robert Jackson; Pierce D Nunley; Hyun W Bae; Kee D Kim; Donna D Ohnmeiss
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2016-02-26

Review 5.  WITHDRAWN: Arthroplasty versus fusion in single-level cervical degenerative disc disease.

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

Review 6.  Factors that may affect outcome in cervical artificial disc replacement: a systematic review.

Authors:  Jian Kang; Changgui Shi; Yifei Gu; Chengwei Yang; Rui Gao
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-07-09       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 7.  The most influential publications in cervical myelopathy.

Authors:  Chester J Donnally; Alexander J Butler; Augustus J Rush; Kevin J Bondar; Michael Y Wang; Frank J Eismont
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2018-12

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.