Literature DB >> 24335629

Clinical outcomes with selectively constrained SECURE-C cervical disc arthroplasty: two-year results from a prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter investigational device exemption study.

Alexander Vaccaro1, William Beutler, Walter Peppelman, Joseph M Marzluff, Jason Highsmith, Andrew Mugglin, George DeMuth, Manasa Gudipally, Kelly J Baker.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: Prospective, multicenter, randomized, and controlled Investigational Device Exemption clinical trial.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical safety and effectiveness of the selectively constrained SECURE-C (Globus Medical, Audubon, PA) Cervical Artificial Disc to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Cervical total disc replacement has been developed as an alternative to ACDF by allowing segmental motion. Current cervical total disc replacement designs incorporate constrained and unconstrained metal-on-metal or metal-on-polymer articulating designs with various means of fixation.
METHODS: A total of 380 patients from 18 investigational sites were prospectively enrolled in the study. Patients were randomized, treated surgically, and evaluated postoperatively at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 12 months, and 24 months. Clinical outcomes include overall success, visual analogue scale pain (right arm, left arm, and neck), neck disability index, neurological status, Short Form 36 (SF-36) Health Status Survey questionnaires, range of motion, and adverse events. Bayesian statistical methods were used to analyze the outcomes.
RESULTS: Overall success results demonstrated statistical superiority of the randomized SECURE-C group compared with the randomized ACDF group at 24 months, with a posterior probability of 100% using the protocol-specified criteria and 98.1% using Food and Drug Administration-defined criteria. At 24 months postoperatively, SECURE-C demonstrated clinically significant improvement in pain and function in terms of neck disability index, visual analogue scale, and 36-Item Short Form Health Survey. At 24 months, the percentage of patients experiencing secondary surgical interventions at the index level was statistically lower for the SECURE-C group (2.5%) than the ACDF group (9.7%). At 24 months, 84.6% of as-treated SECURE-C patients were range-of-motion successes. Satisfaction was high among SECURE-C patients.
CONCLUSION: The selectively constrained SECURE-C Cervical Artificial Disc is as safe and effective as the standard of care, an anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. SECURE-C is statistically superior in terms of overall success, index-level subsequent surgical procedures, and patient satisfaction, making it an attractive surgical option for patients with symptomatic cervical disc disease. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24335629     DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000000031

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


  37 in total

Review 1.  Cervical disc arthroplasty: tips and tricks.

Authors:  Melvin C Makhni; Joseph A Osorio; Paul J Park; Joseph M Lombardi; Kiehyun Daniel Riew
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2018-12-05       Impact factor: 3.075

2.  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

3.  Clinical and radiological evaluation of cervical disc arthroplasty with 5-year follow-up: a prospective study of 384 patients.

Authors:  T Dufour; J Beaurain; J Huppert; P Dam-Hieu; P Bernard; J P Steib
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2019-07-30       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 4.  Cervical disc replacement surgery: biomechanical properties, postoperative motion, and postoperative activity levels.

Authors:  Alfred Pisano; Melvin Helgeson
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2017-06

5.  Challenging the state of the art.

Authors:  Hans Jörg Meisel
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2016-09

Review 6.  Does design matter? Cervical disc replacements under review.

Authors:  Michael D Staudt; Kaushik Das; Neil Duggal
Journal:  Neurosurg Rev       Date:  2016-07-27       Impact factor: 3.042

7.  CORR Insights(®): Reoperation After Cervical Disc Arthroplasty Versus Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Todd J Albert
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2016-02-23       Impact factor: 4.176

8.  Cervical radiculopathy: is a prosthesis preferred over fusion surgery? A systematic review.

Authors:  Caroline M W Goedmakers; Tessa Janssen; Xiaoyu Yang; Mark P Arts; Ronald H M A Bartels; Carmen L A Vleggeert-Lankamp
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2019-10-22       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 9.  Cervical disc replacement surgery: indications, technique, and technical pearls.

Authors:  Dante Leven; Joshua Meaike; Kris Radcliff; Sheeraz Qureshi
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2017-06

10.  Cervical Disc Arthroplasty with Prestige LP Disc Versus Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: Seven-Year Outcomes.

Authors:  Matthew F Gornet; J Kenneth Burkus; Mark E Shaffrey; Hui Nian; Frank E Harrell
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2016-06-22
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.