BACKGROUND: This research was initiated to compare the long-term clinical safety and effectiveness of the selectively constrained SECURE-C (Globus Medical, Audubon, Pennsylvania) Cervical Artificial Disc to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). To preserve segmental motion, cervical total disc replacement (CTDR) was developed as an alternative to ACDF. Current CTDR designs incorporate constrained and unconstrained metal-on-metal or metal-on-polymer articulation with various means of fixation. METHODS: Eighteen investigational sites participated in this prospective clinical trial; 380 patients were enrolled and treated in the investigational device exemption study. The first 5 patients treated at each site were nonrandomized and received the investigational SECURE-C device. Patients were randomized, treated surgically, and evaluated postoperatively at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 12 months, 24 months, and annually thereafter through 84 months postoperative. RESULTS: Overall results for the randomized cohorts demonstrated statistical superiority of the investigational SECURE-C group over the control ACDF group at 84 months postoperative. SECURE-C showed clinically significant improvement in pain and function in terms of neck disability index and visual analog scale scores, and superiority in patient satisfaction was also achieved for patients treated with SECURE-C. CONCLUSION: Clinical study results indicated that the selectively constrained SECURE-C Cervical Artificial Disc is as safe and effective as ACDF. Long-term results from the Post Approval Study demonstrated that SECURE-C is statistically superior to ACDF in terms of overall success and patient satisfaction. Lower rates of subsequent index-level surgeries and device-related adverse events were observed in the SECURE-C group than in the ACDF group. The long-term, level 1 clinical evidence presented here is consistent with other reports supporting the safety and efficacy of cervical arthroplasty, and furthers advocacy for motion preservation as a viable alternative to fusion.
BACKGROUND: This research was initiated to compare the long-term clinical safety and effectiveness of the selectively constrained SECURE-C (Globus Medical, Audubon, Pennsylvania) Cervical Artificial Disc to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). To preserve segmental motion, cervical total disc replacement (CTDR) was developed as an alternative to ACDF. Current CTDR designs incorporate constrained and unconstrained metal-on-metal or metal-on-polymer articulation with various means of fixation. METHODS: Eighteen investigational sites participated in this prospective clinical trial; 380 patients were enrolled and treated in the investigational device exemption study. The first 5 patients treated at each site were nonrandomized and received the investigational SECURE-C device. Patients were randomized, treated surgically, and evaluated postoperatively at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 12 months, 24 months, and annually thereafter through 84 months postoperative. RESULTS: Overall results for the randomized cohorts demonstrated statistical superiority of the investigational SECURE-C group over the control ACDF group at 84 months postoperative. SECURE-C showed clinically significant improvement in pain and function in terms of neck disability index and visual analog scale scores, and superiority in patient satisfaction was also achieved for patients treated with SECURE-C. CONCLUSION: Clinical study results indicated that the selectively constrained SECURE-C Cervical Artificial Disc is as safe and effective as ACDF. Long-term results from the Post Approval Study demonstrated that SECURE-C is statistically superior to ACDF in terms of overall success and patient satisfaction. Lower rates of subsequent index-level surgeries and device-related adverse events were observed in the SECURE-C group than in the ACDF group. The long-term, level 1 clinical evidence presented here is consistent with other reports supporting the safety and efficacy of cervical arthroplasty, and furthers advocacy for motion preservation as a viable alternative to fusion.
Authors: Michael S Hisey; Hyun W Bae; Reginald J Davis; Steven Gaede; Greg Hoffman; Kee D Kim; Pierce D Nunley; Daniel Peterson; Ralph F Rashbaum; John Stokes; Donna D Ohnmeiss Journal: J Spinal Disord Tech Date: 2015-05
Authors: Pierce D Nunley; Ajay Jawahar; Eubulus J Kerr; Charles J Gordon; David A Cavanaugh; Elisa M Birdsong; Marolyn Stocks; Guy Danielson Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2012-03-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Robert J Jackson; Reginald J Davis; Gregory A Hoffman; Hyun W Bae; Michael S Hisey; Kee D Kim; Steven E Gaede; Pierce Dalton Nunley Journal: J Neurosurg Spine Date: 2016-01-22
Authors: John G Heller; Rick C Sasso; Stephen M Papadopoulos; Paul A Anderson; Richard G Fessler; Robert J Hacker; Domagoj Coric; Joseph C Cauthen; Daniel K Riew Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2009-01-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Daniel Murrey; Michael Janssen; Rick Delamarter; Jeffrey Goldstein; Jack Zigler; Bobby Tay; Bruce Darden Journal: Spine J Date: 2008-09-06 Impact factor: 4.166
Authors: Jack E Zigler; Rick Delamarter; Dan Murrey; Jeffrey Spivak; Michael Janssen Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2013-02-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Daniel Warren; Tate Andres; Christian Hoelscher; Pedro Ricart-Hoffiz; John Bendo; Jeffrey Goldstein Journal: Int J Spine Surg Date: 2013-12-01
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
Authors: Pierce D Nunley; Eubulus J Kerr; David A Cavanaugh; Phillip Andrew Utter; Peter G Campbell; Rishi Wadhwa; Kelly A Frank; Kyle E Marshall; Marcus B Stone Journal: Int J Spine Surg Date: 2020-06-30
Authors: Ian J Wellington; Cameron Kia; Ergin Coskun; Barrett B Torre; Christopher L Antonacci; Michael R Mancini; John P Connors; Sean M Esmende; Heeren S Makanji Journal: Bioengineering (Basel) Date: 2022-05-23