Literature DB >> 31100723

Lumbar disc arthroplasty versus anterior lumbar interbody fusion: 5-year outcomes for patients in the Maverick disc investigational device exemption study.

Matthew F Gornet1, J Kenneth Burkus2, Randall F Dryer3, John H Peloza4, Francine W Schranck5, Anne G Copay5.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Despite evidence of its safety and effectiveness, the use of lumbar disc arthroplasty has been slow to expand due in part to concerns about late complications and the risks of revision surgery associated with early devices. More recently, FDA approval of newer devices and improving reimbursements have reversed this trend in the United States. Additional long-term data on lumbar disc arthroplasty are still needed. This study reports the 5-year results of the FDA investigational device exemption clinical trial of the Medtronic Spinal and Biologics' Maverick total disc replacement.
METHODS: Patients with single-level degenerative disc disease from L4 to S1 were randomized 2:1 at 31 investigational sites. In the period from April 2003 to August 2004, 405 patients received the investigational device and 172 patients underwent the control procedure of anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Outcome measures included the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), numeric rating scales (NRSs) for back and leg pain, the SF-36, disc height, interbody motion, heterotopic ossification (investigational device), adverse events (AEs), additional surgeries, and neurological status. Treatment was considered an overall success when all of the following criteria were met: 1) ODI score improvement ≥ 15 points over the preoperative score; 2) maintenance or improvement in neurological status compared with preoperatively; 3) disc height success, that is, no more than a 2-mm reduction in anterior or posterior height; 4) no serious AEs caused by the implant or by the implant and the surgical procedure; and 5) no additional surgery classified as a failure.
RESULTS: Compared to that in the control group, improvement in the investigational group was statistically greater according to the ODI and SF-36 Physical Component Summary (PCS) at 1, 2, and 5 years; the NRS for back pain at 1 and 2 years; and the NRS for leg pain at 1 year. The rates of heterotopic ossification increased over time: 1.0% (4/382) at 1 year, 2.6% (9/345) at 2 years, and 5.9% (11/187) at 5 years. Investigational patients had fewer device-related AEs and serious device-related AEs than the control patients at both 2 and 5 years postoperatively. Noninferiority of the composite measure overall success was demonstrated at all follow-up intervals; superiority was demonstrated at 1 and 2 years.
CONCLUSIONS: Lumbar disc arthroplasty is a safe and effective treatment for single-level lumbar degenerative disc disease, resulting in improved physical function and reduced pain up to 5 years after surgery.Clinical trial registration no.: NCT00635843 (clinicaltrials.gov).

Entities:  

Keywords:  AE = adverse event; ALIF = anterior lumbar interbody fusion; DDD = degenerative disc disease; HO = heterotopic ossification; IDE = investigational device exemption; MCS = Mental Component Summary; NRS = numeric rating scale; ODI = Oswestry Disability Index; PCS = Physical Component Summary; degenerative disc disease; heterotopic ossification; lumbar disc arthroplasty; total disc replacement

Year:  2019        PMID: 31100723     DOI: 10.3171/2019.2.SPINE181037

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


  8 in total

Review 1.  Artificial disc replacement in spine surgery.

Authors:  Yahya A Othman; Ravi Verma; Sheeraz A Qureshi
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2019-09

2.  Incidence and Resolution Strategies for Early-Onset Postoperative Leg Pain Following Lumbar Total Disc Replacement.

Authors:  Richard D Guyer; Nicole Ferko; Ashley Bonner; Aaron Situ; Donna D Ohnmeiss
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2021-09-22

Review 3.  Proper animal experimental designs for preclinical research of biomaterials for intervertebral disc regeneration.

Authors:  Yizhong Peng; Xiangcheng Qing; Hongyang Shu; Shuo Tian; Wenbo Yang; Songfeng Chen; Hui Lin; Xiao Lv; Lei Zhao; Xi Chen; Feifei Pu; Donghua Huang; Xu Cao; Zengwu Shao
Journal:  Biomater Transl       Date:  2021-06-28

4.  In which cases do surgeons specializing in total disc replacement perform fusion in patients with symptomatic lumbar disc degeneration?

Authors:  Jack E Zigler; Richard D Guyer; Scott L Blumenthal; Alexander M Satin; Jessica L Shellock; Donna D Ohnmeiss
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2022-08-04       Impact factor: 2.721

Review 5.  Cervical and Lumbar Disc Arthroplasty: A Review of Current Implant Design and Outcomes.

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

Review 6.  What can we learn from long-term studies on chronic low back pain? A scoping review.

Authors:  Alisa L Dutmer; Remko Soer; André P Wolff; Michiel F Reneman; Maarten H Coppes; Henrica R Schiphorst Preuper
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2022-01-19       Impact factor: 3.134

7.  Comparison of Mid- to Long-term Follow-up of Patient-reported Outcomes Measures After Single-level Lumbar Total Disc Arthroplasty, Multi-level Lumbar Total Disc Arthroplasty, and the Lumbar Hybrid Procedure for the Treatment of Degenerative Disc Disease.

Authors:  Matthew Scott-Young; So Mang Simon Lee; David Nielsen; Evelyne Rathbone; Matthew Rackham; Wayne Hing
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2022-03-01       Impact factor: 3.468

8.  Impact of heterotopic ossification following lumbar total disk replacement: a systematic review.

Authors:  Colleen Hood; Reza Zamani; Mohammad Akrami
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2022-04-23       Impact factor: 2.562

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.