Literature DB >> 25785955

Comparison of Clinical Outcomes of 1- and 2-Level Total Disc Replacement: Four-Year Results From a Prospective, Randomized, Controlled, Multicenter IDE Clinical Trial.

Hyun W Bae1, Kee D Kim, Pierce Dalton Nunley, Robert J Jackson, Michael S Hisey, Reginald J Davis, Gregory A Hoffman, Steven E Gaede, Guy O Danielson, Daniel L Peterson, John M Stokes, Ali Araghi.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: A prospective, randomized, multicenter Food and Drug Administration Investigation Device Exemption study using total disc replacement as surgical treatment of degenerative disc disease at 1 or 2 contiguous levels of the cervical spine.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of total disc replacement at single or 2 contiguous levels through 48 months of follow-up. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Cervical total disc replacement has been shown to be a safe and effective alternative to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion at 24 months. Its motion-preserving capabilities may avoid accelerating adjacent segment pathology and thereby lower the rate of associated complications.
METHODS: Patients were randomized in a 2:1 ratio (total disc replacement [TDR]: anterior cervical discectomy and fusion [ACDF]) at 24 sites. Ultimately, 164 patients received TDR at 1 level and 225 patients received TDR at 2 contiguous levels. An additional 24 patients (15 one-level, 9 two-level) were treated with TDR as training cases.Outcome measures included neck disability index, visual analogue scale neck and arm pain, Short Form 12-item Health Survey (SF-12) Mental Composite Score (MCS) and Physical Composite Score (PCS), range of motion, major complication rates, and secondary surgery rates. Patients received follow-up examinations at regular intervals through 4 years after surgery.
RESULTS: Preoperative characteristics were statistically similar for the 1- and 2-level patient groups. Four-year follow-up rates were 83.1% (1-level) and 89.0% (2-level). There was no statistically significant difference between 1- and 2-level TDR groups for all clinical outcome measures. Both TDR groups experienced significant improvement at each follow-up when compared with preoperative scores. One case of migration was reported in the 2-level TDR group.
CONCLUSION: A 4-year post hoc comparison of 1- and 2-level TDR patients concurrently enrolled in a 24-center, Food and Drug Administration Investigation Device Exemption clinical trial indicated no statistical differences between groups in clinical outcomes, overall complication rates, and subsequent surgery rates. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25785955     DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000000887

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


  10 in total

Review 1.  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

2.  Adjacent segment degeneration and disease following cervical arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Daniel Brian Scherman; Ralph J Mobbs; Kevin Phan
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2016-03

3.  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

4.  Cervical Artificial Disc Replacement Versus Fusion for Cervical Degenerative Disc Disease: A Health Technology Assessment.

Authors: 
Journal:  Ont Health Technol Assess Ser       Date:  2019-02-19

Review 5.  Mid- to Long-Term Outcomes of Cervical Disc Arthroplasty versus Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion for Treatment of Symptomatic Cervical Disc Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Eight Prospective Randomized Controlled Trials.

Authors:  Yan Hu; Guohua Lv; Siying Ren; Daniel Johansen
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-02-12       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  A morphometric study of the middle and lower cervical vertebral endplates and their components.

Authors:  Hang Feng; Xiang-Yi Fang; Da-Geng Huang; Cheng-Cheng Yu; Hou-Kun Li; Song-Chuan Zhao; Chao-Yuan Ge; Ru-Hai Bai; Ding-Jun Hao
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2017-03       Impact factor: 1.889

Review 7.  Are Controversial Issues in Cervical Total Disc Replacement Resolved or Unresolved?: A Review of Literature and Recent Updates.

Authors:  Chun-Kun Park; Kyeong-Sik Ryu
Journal:  Asian Spine J       Date:  2018-02-07

8.  One-Level Versus 2-Level Treatment With Cervical Disc Arthroplasty or Fusion: Outcomes Up to 7 Years.

Authors:  Matthew F Gornet; Todd H Lanman; J Kenneth Burkus; Scott D Hodges; Jeffrey R McConnell; Randall F Dryer; Francine W Schranck; Anne G Copay
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2019-12-31

9.  Long-term Evaluation of Cervical Disc Arthroplasty with the Mobi-C© Cervical Disc: A Randomized, Prospective, Multicenter Clinical Trial with Seven-Year Follow-up.

Authors:  Kris Radcliff; Reginald J Davis; Michael S Hisey; Pierce D Nunley; Gregory A Hoffman; Robert J Jackson; Hyun W Bae; Todd Albert; Dom Coric
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2017-11-28

10.  Interaction of demographic factors with the results of the surgery for degenerative disease of the cervical spine: a retrospective evaluation.

Authors:  Celso Garreta Prats Dias; Bruno Braga Roberto; Lucas Basaglia; Mario Lenza; Rodrigo Junqueira Nicolau; Mario Ferretti
Journal:  Rev Bras Ortop       Date:  2017-08-24
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.