Cargando…
Results at 24 months from the prospective, randomized, multicenter Investigational Device Exemption trial of ProDisc-C versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with 4-year follow-up and continued access patients
BACKGROUND: Cervical total disk replacement (TDR) is intended to address pain and preserve motion between vertebral bodies in patients with symptomatic cervical disk disease. Two-year follow-up for the ProDisc-C (Synthes USA Products, LLC, West Chester, Pennsylvania) TDR clinical trial showed non-in...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Elsevier, Inc.
2010
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4365641/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25802660 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esas.2010.09.001 |
_version_ | 1782362258084462592 |
---|---|
author | Delamarter, Rick B. Murrey, Daniel Janssen, Michael E. Goldstein, Jeffrey A. Zigler, Jack Tay, Bobby K-B Darden, Bruce |
author_facet | Delamarter, Rick B. Murrey, Daniel Janssen, Michael E. Goldstein, Jeffrey A. Zigler, Jack Tay, Bobby K-B Darden, Bruce |
author_sort | Delamarter, Rick B. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Cervical total disk replacement (TDR) is intended to address pain and preserve motion between vertebral bodies in patients with symptomatic cervical disk disease. Two-year follow-up for the ProDisc-C (Synthes USA Products, LLC, West Chester, Pennsylvania) TDR clinical trial showed non-inferiority versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), showing superiority in many clinical outcomes. We present the 4-year interim follow-up results. METHODS: Patients were randomized (1:1) to ProDisc-C (PDC-R) or ACDF. Patients were assessed preoperatively, and postoperatively at 6 weeks and 3, 6, 12, 18, 24, 36, and 48 months. After the randomized portion, continued access (CA) patients also underwent ProDisc-C implantation, with follow-up visits up to 24 months. Evaluations included Neck Disability Index (NDI), Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for pain/satisfaction, and radiographic and physical/neurologic examinations. RESULTS: Randomized patients (103 PDC-R and 106 ACDF) and 136 CA patients were treated at 13 sites. VAS pain and NDI score improvements from baseline were significant for all patients (P < .0001) but did not differ among groups. VAS satisfaction was higher at all time points for PDC-R versus ACDF patients (P = .0499 at 48 months). The percentage of patients who responded yes to surgery again was 85.6% at 24 months and 88.9% at 48 months in the PDC-R group, 80.9% at 24 months and 81.0% at 48 months in the ACDF group, and 86.3% at 24 months in the CA group. Five PDC-R patients (48 months) and no CA patients (24 months) had index-level bridging bone. By 48 months, approximately 4-fold more ACDF patients required secondary surgery (3 of 103 PDC-R patients [2.9%] vs 12 of 106 ACDF patients [11.3%], P = .0292). Of these, 6 ACDF patients (5.6%) required procedures at adjacent levels. Three CA patients required secondary procedures (24 months). CONCLUSIONS: Our 4-year data support that ProDisc-C TDR and ACDF are viable surgical options for symptomatic cervical disk disease. Although ACDF patients may be at higher risk for additional surgical intervention, patients in both groups show good clinical results at longer-term follow-up. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4365641 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2010 |
publisher | Elsevier, Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-43656412015-03-23 Results at 24 months from the prospective, randomized, multicenter Investigational Device Exemption trial of ProDisc-C versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with 4-year follow-up and continued access patients Delamarter, Rick B. Murrey, Daniel Janssen, Michael E. Goldstein, Jeffrey A. Zigler, Jack Tay, Bobby K-B Darden, Bruce SAS J Full Length Article BACKGROUND: Cervical total disk replacement (TDR) is intended to address pain and preserve motion between vertebral bodies in patients with symptomatic cervical disk disease. Two-year follow-up for the ProDisc-C (Synthes USA Products, LLC, West Chester, Pennsylvania) TDR clinical trial showed non-inferiority versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), showing superiority in many clinical outcomes. We present the 4-year interim follow-up results. METHODS: Patients were randomized (1:1) to ProDisc-C (PDC-R) or ACDF. Patients were assessed preoperatively, and postoperatively at 6 weeks and 3, 6, 12, 18, 24, 36, and 48 months. After the randomized portion, continued access (CA) patients also underwent ProDisc-C implantation, with follow-up visits up to 24 months. Evaluations included Neck Disability Index (NDI), Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for pain/satisfaction, and radiographic and physical/neurologic examinations. RESULTS: Randomized patients (103 PDC-R and 106 ACDF) and 136 CA patients were treated at 13 sites. VAS pain and NDI score improvements from baseline were significant for all patients (P < .0001) but did not differ among groups. VAS satisfaction was higher at all time points for PDC-R versus ACDF patients (P = .0499 at 48 months). The percentage of patients who responded yes to surgery again was 85.6% at 24 months and 88.9% at 48 months in the PDC-R group, 80.9% at 24 months and 81.0% at 48 months in the ACDF group, and 86.3% at 24 months in the CA group. Five PDC-R patients (48 months) and no CA patients (24 months) had index-level bridging bone. By 48 months, approximately 4-fold more ACDF patients required secondary surgery (3 of 103 PDC-R patients [2.9%] vs 12 of 106 ACDF patients [11.3%], P = .0292). Of these, 6 ACDF patients (5.6%) required procedures at adjacent levels. Three CA patients required secondary procedures (24 months). CONCLUSIONS: Our 4-year data support that ProDisc-C TDR and ACDF are viable surgical options for symptomatic cervical disk disease. Although ACDF patients may be at higher risk for additional surgical intervention, patients in both groups show good clinical results at longer-term follow-up. Elsevier, Inc. 2010-12-01 /pmc/articles/PMC4365641/ /pubmed/25802660 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esas.2010.09.001 Text en © 2010 SAS - The International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 Unported License, permitting all non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Full Length Article Delamarter, Rick B. Murrey, Daniel Janssen, Michael E. Goldstein, Jeffrey A. Zigler, Jack Tay, Bobby K-B Darden, Bruce Results at 24 months from the prospective, randomized, multicenter Investigational Device Exemption trial of ProDisc-C versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with 4-year follow-up and continued access patients |
title | Results at 24 months from the prospective, randomized, multicenter Investigational Device Exemption trial of ProDisc-C versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with 4-year follow-up and continued access patients |
title_full | Results at 24 months from the prospective, randomized, multicenter Investigational Device Exemption trial of ProDisc-C versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with 4-year follow-up and continued access patients |
title_fullStr | Results at 24 months from the prospective, randomized, multicenter Investigational Device Exemption trial of ProDisc-C versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with 4-year follow-up and continued access patients |
title_full_unstemmed | Results at 24 months from the prospective, randomized, multicenter Investigational Device Exemption trial of ProDisc-C versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with 4-year follow-up and continued access patients |
title_short | Results at 24 months from the prospective, randomized, multicenter Investigational Device Exemption trial of ProDisc-C versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with 4-year follow-up and continued access patients |
title_sort | results at 24 months from the prospective, randomized, multicenter investigational device exemption trial of prodisc-c versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with 4-year follow-up and continued access patients |
topic | Full Length Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4365641/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25802660 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esas.2010.09.001 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT delamarterrickb resultsat24monthsfromtheprospectiverandomizedmulticenterinvestigationaldeviceexemptiontrialofprodisccversusanteriorcervicaldiscectomyandfusionwith4yearfollowupandcontinuedaccesspatients AT murreydaniel resultsat24monthsfromtheprospectiverandomizedmulticenterinvestigationaldeviceexemptiontrialofprodisccversusanteriorcervicaldiscectomyandfusionwith4yearfollowupandcontinuedaccesspatients AT janssenmichaele resultsat24monthsfromtheprospectiverandomizedmulticenterinvestigationaldeviceexemptiontrialofprodisccversusanteriorcervicaldiscectomyandfusionwith4yearfollowupandcontinuedaccesspatients AT goldsteinjeffreya resultsat24monthsfromtheprospectiverandomizedmulticenterinvestigationaldeviceexemptiontrialofprodisccversusanteriorcervicaldiscectomyandfusionwith4yearfollowupandcontinuedaccesspatients AT ziglerjack resultsat24monthsfromtheprospectiverandomizedmulticenterinvestigationaldeviceexemptiontrialofprodisccversusanteriorcervicaldiscectomyandfusionwith4yearfollowupandcontinuedaccesspatients AT taybobbykb resultsat24monthsfromtheprospectiverandomizedmulticenterinvestigationaldeviceexemptiontrialofprodisccversusanteriorcervicaldiscectomyandfusionwith4yearfollowupandcontinuedaccesspatients AT dardenbruce resultsat24monthsfromtheprospectiverandomizedmulticenterinvestigationaldeviceexemptiontrialofprodisccversusanteriorcervicaldiscectomyandfusionwith4yearfollowupandcontinuedaccesspatients |