Literature DB >> 22195608

Analysis of the three United States Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption cervical arthroplasty trials.

Cheerag D Upadhyaya1, Jau-Ching Wu, Gregory Trost, Regis W Haid, Vincent C Traynelis, Bobby Tay, Domagoj Coric, Praveen V Mummaneni.   

Abstract

OBJECT: There are now 3 randomized, multicenter, US FDA investigational device exemption, industry-sponsored studies comparing arthroplasty with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for single-level cervical disease with 2 years of follow-up. These 3 studies evaluated the Prestige ST, Bryan, and ProDisc-C artificial discs. The authors analyzed the combined results of these trials.
METHODS: A total of 1213 patients with symptomatic, single-level cervical disc disease were randomized into 2 treatment arms in the 3 randomized trials. Six hundred twenty-one patients received an artificial cervical disc, and 592 patients were treated with ACDF. In the three trials, 94% of the arthroplasty group and 87% of the ACDF group have completed 2 years of follow-up. The authors analyzed the 2-year data from these 3 trials including previously unpublished source data. Statistical analysis was performed with fixed and random effects models.
RESULTS: The authors' analysis revealed that segmental sagittal motion was preserved with arthroplasty (preoperatively 7.26° and postoperatively 8.14°) at the 2-year time point. The fusion rate for ACDF at 2 years was 95%. The Neck Disability Index, 36-Item Short Form Health Survey Mental, and Physical Component Summaries, neck pain, and arm pain scores were not statistically different between the groups at the 24-month follow-up. The arthroplasty group demonstrated superior results at 24 months in neurological success (RR 0.595, I(2) = 0%, p = 0.006). The arthroplasty group had a lower rate of secondary surgeries at the 2-year time point (RR 0.44, I(2) = 0%, p = 0.004). At the 2-year time point, the reoperation rate for adjacent-level disease was lower for the arthroplasty group when the authors analyzed the combined data set using a fixed effects model (RR 0.460, I(2) = 2.9%, p = 0.030), but this finding was not significant using a random effects model. Adverse event reporting was too heterogeneous between the 3 trials to combine for analysis.
CONCLUSIONS: Both anterior cervical discectomy and fusion as well as arthroplasty demonstrate excellent 2-year surgical results for the treatment of 1-level cervical disc disease with radiculopathy. Arthroplasty is associated with a lower rate of secondary surgery and a higher rate of neurological success at 2 years. Arthroplasty may be associated with a lower rate of adjacent-level disease at 2 years, but further follow-up and analysis are needed to confirm this finding.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22195608     DOI: 10.3171/2011.6.SPINE10623

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


  32 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

Review 3.  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 4.  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

5.  Does sagittal position of the CTDR-related centre of rotation influence functional outcome? Prospective 2-year follow-up analysis.

Authors:  P Suchomel; L Jurák; J Antinheimo; J Pohjola; J Stulik; H-J Meisel; M Čabraja; C Woiciechowsky; B Bruchmann; I Shackleford; R Arregui; S Sola
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2014-02-20       Impact factor: 3.134

6.  Differences between arthroplasty and anterior cervical fusion in two-level cervical degenerative disc disease.

Authors:  Li-Yu Fay; Wen-Cheng Huang; Tzu-Yun Tsai; Jau-Ching Wu; Chin-Chu Ko; Tsung-Hsi Tu; Ching-Lan Wu; Henrich Cheng
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-12-07       Impact factor: 3.134

7.  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

8.  What are the associative factors of adjacent segment degeneration after anterior cervical spine surgery? Comparative study between anterior cervical fusion and arthroplasty with 5-year follow-up MRI and CT.

Authors:  Jeong Yoon Park; Kyung Hyun Kim; Sung Uk Kuh; Dong Kyu Chin; Keun Su Kim; Yong Eun Cho
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2012-12-15       Impact factor: 3.134

9.  Reduction in range of cervical motion on serial long-term follow-up in patients undergoing oblique corpectomy for cervical spondylotic myelopathy.

Authors:  Mazda K Turel; Sauradeep Sarkar; Krishna Prabhu; Roy T Daniel; K S Jacob; Ari G Chacko
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-03-01       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 10.  Mid- to long-term outcomes after cervical disc arthroplasty compared with anterior discectomy and fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Chunpeng Ren; Yueming Song; Youdi Xue; Xi Yang
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2014-02-11       Impact factor: 3.134

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.