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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Delamarter, Rick B., Murrey, Daniel, Janssen, Michael E., Goldstein, Jeffrey A., Zigler, Jack, Tay, Bobby K-B, Darden, Bruce
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