RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: One- and two-level cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) has been compared to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) in several large-scale, prospective, randomized trials that have demonstrated similar clinical outcomes. However, whether these results would be similar when treating 3-level disc herniation and/or spondylosis has remained unanswered. This study aimed to investigate the differences between 3-level CDA and ACDF. METHODS: A series of 50 patients who underwent 3-level CDA at C3-7 was retrospectively reviewed and compared with another series of 50 patients (age- and sex-matched controls) who underwent ACDF at C3-7. Clinical outcomes were measured using the visual analog scale (VAS) for neck and arm pain, the modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association (mJOA) scale, and the Neck Disability Index (NDI). Radiological outcomes included range of motion (ROM) at the index levels. Every patient was evaluated by CT for the presence of fusion in the ACDF group. Also, complication profiles were investigated. RESULTS: The demographics and levels of distribution in both groups were very similar. During the follow-up period of 24 months, clinical outcomes improved (overall and respectively in each group) for both the CDA and ACDF patients when compared with the patients' preoperative condition. There were essentially few differences between the two groups in terms of neck and arm pain VAS scores, mJOA scores, and NDI scores preoperatively and at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively. After the 3-level surgery, the CDA group had an increased mean ROM of approximately 3.4°, at 25.2° ± 8.84°, compared to their preoperative ROM (21.8° ± 7.20°) (p = 0.001), whereas the ACDF group had little mobility (22.8° ± 5.90° before and 1.0° ± 1.28° after surgery; p < 0.001). The mean operative time, estimated blood loss, and complication profiles were similar for both groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this selectively matched retrospective study, clinical outcomes after 3-level CDA and ACDF were similar during the 2-year follow-up period. CDA not only successfully preserved but slightly increased the mobility at the 3 index levels. However, the safety and efficacy of 3-level CDA requires more long-term data for validatation.
Asunto(s)
Vértebras Cervicales/cirugía , Degeneración del Disco Intervertebral/cirugía , Desplazamiento del Disco Intervertebral/cirugía , Espondilosis/cirugía , Adulto , Anciano , Artroplastia/métodos , Discectomía/métodos , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Cuello/cirugía , Estudios Prospectivos , Radiografía/métodos , Estudios Retrospectivos , Reeemplazo Total de Disco/métodosRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this open-label, nonrandomized trial was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of bilateral caudate nucleus deep brain stimulation (DBS) for treatment-resistant tinnitus. METHODS: Six participants underwent DBS electrode implantation. One participant was removed from the study for suicidality unrelated to brain stimulation. Participants underwent a stimulation optimization period that ranged from 5 to 13 months, during which the most promising stimulation parameters for tinnitus reduction for each individual were determined. These individual optimal stimulation parameters were then used during 24 weeks of continuous caudate stimulation to reach the endpoint. The primary outcome for efficacy was the Tinnitus Functional Index (TFI), and executive function (EF) safety was a composite z-score from multiple neuropsychological tests (EF score). The secondary outcome for efficacy was the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory (THI); for neuropsychiatric safety it was the Frontal Systems Behavior Scale (FrSBe), and for hearing safety it was pure tone audiometry at 0.5, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 kHz and word recognition score (WRS). Other monitored outcomes included surgery- and device-related adverse events (AEs). Five participants provided full analyzable data sets. Primary and secondary outcomes were based on differences in measurements between baseline and endpoint. RESULTS: The treatment effect size of caudate DBS for tinnitus was assessed by TFI [mean (SE), 23.3 (12.4)] and THI [30.8 (10.4)] scores, both of which were statistically significant (Wilcoxon signed-rank test, 1-tailed; alpha = 0.05). Based on clinically significant treatment response categorical analysis, there were 3 responders determined by TFI (≥ 13-point decrease) and 4 by THI (≥ 20-point decrease) scores. Safety outcomes according to EF score, FrSBe, audiometric thresholds, and WRS showed no significant change with continuous caudate stimulation. Surgery-related and device-related AEs were expected, transient, and reversible. There was only one serious AE, a suicide attempt unrelated to caudate neuromodulation in a participant in whom stimulation was in the off mode for 2 months prior to the event. CONCLUSIONS: Bilateral caudate nucleus neuromodulation by DBS for severe, refractory tinnitus in this phase I trial showed very encouraging results. Primary and secondary outcomes revealed a highly variable treatment effect size and 60%-80% treatment response rate for clinically significant benefit, and no safety concerns. The design of a phase II trial may benefit from targeting refinement for final DBS lead placement to decrease the duration of the stimulation optimization period and to increase treatment effect size uniformity.Clinical trial registration no.: NCT01988688 (clinicaltrials.gov).
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: The authors sought to compare the effect of index level sagittal alignment on cephalad radiographic adjacent segment pathology (RASP) in patients undergoing cervical total disc arthroplasty (TDA) or anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). METHODS: This was a retrospective study of prospectively collected radiographic data from 79 patients who underwent TDA or ACDF and were enrolled and followed prospectively at two centers in a multicenter FDA investigational device exemption trial of the Bryan cervical disc prosthesis used for arthroplasty. Neutral lateral radiographs were obtained pre- and postoperatively and at 1, 2, 4, and up to 7 years following surgery. The index level Cobb angle was measured both pre- and postoperatively. Cephalad disc degeneration was determined by a previously described measurement of the disc height/anteroposterior (AP) distance ratio. RESULTS: Sixty-eight patients (n = 33 ACDF; n = 35 TDA) had complete radiographs and were included for analysis. Preoperatively, there was no difference in the index level Cobb angle between the ACDF and TDA patients. Postoperatively, the ACDF patients had a larger segment lordosis compared to the TDA patients (p = 0.002). Patients who had a postoperative kyphotic Cobb angle were more likely to have undergone TDA (p = 0.01). A significant decrease in the disc height/AP distance ratio occurred over time (p = 0.035), by an average of 0.01818 at 84 months. However, this decrease was not influenced by preoperative alignment, postoperative alignment, or type of surgery. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of patients undergoing TDA and ACDF, the authors found that preoperative and postoperative sagittal alignment have no effect on RASP at follow-up of at least 7 years. They identified time as the only significant factor affecting RASP.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: The authors assessed the 10-year clinical safety and effectiveness of cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) to treat degenerative cervical spine disease at 2 adjacent levels compared to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). METHODS: A prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter FDA-approved clinical trial was conducted comparing the low-profile titanium ceramic composite-based Prestige LP Cervical Disc (n = 209) at two levels with ACDF (n = 188). Ten-year follow-up data from a postapproval study were available on 148 CDA and 118 ACDF patients and are reported here. Clinical and radiographic evaluations were completed preoperatively, intraoperatively, and at regular postoperative follow-up intervals for up to 10 years. The primary endpoint was overall success, a composite variable that included key safety and efficacy considerations. Ten-year follow-up rates were 86.0% for CDA and 84.9% for ACDF. RESULTS: From 2 to 10 years, CDA demonstrated statistical superiority over ACDF for overall success, with rates at 10 years of 80.4% versus 62.2%, respectively (posterior probability of superiority [PPS] = 99.9%). Neck Disability Index (NDI) success was also superior, with rates at 10 years of 88.4% versus 76.5% (PPS = 99.5%), as was neurological success (92.6% vs 86.1%; PPS = 95.6%). Improvements from preoperative results in NDI and neck pain scores were consistently statistically superior for CDA compared to ACDF. All other study effectiveness measures were at least noninferior for CDA compared to ACDF through the 10-year follow-up period, including disc height. Mean angular ranges of motion at treated levels were maintained in the CDA group for up to 10 years. The rates of grade IV heterotopic ossification (HO) at the superior and inferior levels were 8.2% and 10.3%, respectively. The rate of severe HO (grade III or IV) did not increase significantly from 7 years (42.4%) to 10 years (39.0%). The CDA group had fewer serious (grade 3-4) implant-related or implant/surgical procedure-related adverse events (3.8% vs 8.1%; posterior mean 95% Bayesian credible interval [BCI] of the log hazard ratio [LHR] -0.92 [-1.88, -0.01]). The CDA group also had statistically fewer secondary surgical procedures at the index levels (4.7%) than the ACDF group (17.6%) (LHR [95% BCI] -1.39 [-2.15, -0.61]) as well as at adjacent levels (9.0% vs 17.9%). CONCLUSIONS: The Prestige LP Cervical Disc, implanted at two adjacent levels, maintains improved clinical outcomes and segmental motion 10 years after surgery and is a safe and effective alternative to fusion.Clinical trial registration no.: NCT00637156 (clinicaltrials.gov).
RESUMEN
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).
Asunto(s)
Degeneración del Disco Intervertebral/cirugía , Disco Intervertebral/cirugía , Vértebras Lumbares/cirugía , Región Lumbosacra/cirugía , Vértebras Cervicales/cirugía , Discectomía/métodos , Estudios de Seguimiento , Humanos , Dimensión del Dolor , Fusión Vertebral/métodos , Reeemplazo Total de Disco/métodosRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: Food and Drug Administration-approved investigational device exemption (IDE) studies have provided level I evidence supporting cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) as a safe and effective alternative to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). Long-term CDA outcomes continue to be evaluated. Here, the authors present outcomes at 10 years postoperatively for the single-level CDA arm of an IDE study (postapproval study). METHODS: The primary endpoint was overall success, a composite variable composed of five criteria: 1) Neck Disability Index score improvement ≥ 15 points; 2) maintenance or improvement in neurological status; 3) no decline in anterior or posterior functional spinal unit (FSU) height of more than 2 mm compared to 6 weeks postoperatively; 4) no serious adverse event (AE) caused by the implant or the implant and the surgical procedure; and 5) no additional surgery classified as a failure. Additional safety and effectiveness measures included numeric rating scales for neck pain and arm pain, SF-36 quality-of-life physical and mental components, patient satisfaction, range of motion, and AEs. RESULTS: From the reported assessments at 7 years postoperatively to the 10-year postoperative follow-up, the scores for all patient-reported outcomes, rate of overall success (without FSU), and proportion of patients at least maintaining their neurological function remained stable for the CDA group. Nine patients had secondary surgery at the index level, increasing the secondary surgery cumulative rate from 6.6% to 10.3%. In that same time frame, four patients experienced a serious implant or implant/surgical procedure-related AE, for a 10-year cumulative rate of 7.8%. Seven patients had any second surgery at adjacent levels, for a 10-year cumulative rate of 13.8%. Average angular motion at both the index and adjacent levels was well maintained without creating hypermobility. Class IV heterotopic ossification increased from 1.2% at 2 years to 4.6% at 7 years and 9.0% at 10 years. Patient satisfaction was > 90% at 10 years. CONCLUSIONS: CDA remained safe and effective out to 10 years postoperatively, with results comparable to 7-year outcomes and with high patient satisfaction.Clinical trial registration no.: NCT00667459 (clinicaltrials.gov).
Asunto(s)
Artroplastia/tendencias , Vértebras Cervicales/cirugía , Discectomía , Degeneración del Disco Intervertebral/cirugía , Adulto , Artroplastia/métodos , Evaluación de la Discapacidad , Discectomía/métodos , Femenino , Estudios de Seguimiento , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Dolor de Cuello/cirugía , Satisfacción del Paciente/estadística & datos numéricos , Fusión Vertebral/métodos , Reeemplazo Total de Disco/métodos , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
In BriefIn this study the authors compare cervical arthroplasty with fusion surgery in a randomized controlled trial using patient-reported outcome measures and MRI after 5 years of follow-up. Because the main purpose of arthroplasties is to prevent adjacent-segment pathology, it is important to investigate if that is actually realized in practice.
Asunto(s)
Vértebras Cervicales , Degeneración del Disco Intervertebral/cirugía , Radiculopatía/cirugía , Fusión Vertebral , Reeemplazo Total de Disco , Adulto , Femenino , Estudios de Seguimiento , Humanos , Degeneración del Disco Intervertebral/complicaciones , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Radiculopatía/etiología , Rango del Movimiento Articular , Factores de Tiempo , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: The long-term efficacy of artificial disc replacement (ADR) surgery compared with fusion after decompression for the treatment of cervical degenerative disc disease and radiculopathy has not previously been investigated in a population-based setting. METHODS: All patients with cervical degenerative disc disease and radiculopathy who were in the national Swedish Spine Registry (Swespine) beginning in January 1, 2006, were eligible for the study. Follow-up information was obtained up to November 15, 2017. The authors compared, using propensity score matching, patients treated with anterior decompression and insertion of an ADR with patients who underwent anterior decompression combined with fusion surgery. The primary outcome was the Neck Disability Index (NDI), a patient-reported function score ranging from 0% to 100%, with higher scores indicating greater disability and a minimum clinically important difference of > 15%. RESULTS: A total of 3998 patients (2018:1980 women/men) met the inclusion criteria, of whom 204 had undergone arthroplasty and 3794 had undergone fusion. After propensity score matching, 185 patients with a mean age of 49.7 years remained in each group. Scores on the NDI were approximately halved in both groups after 5 years, but without a significant mean difference in NDI (3.0%; 95% CI -8.4 to 2.4; p = 0.28) between the groups. There were no differences between the groups in EuroQol-5 Dimensions or in pain scores for the neck and arm. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with cervical degenerative disc disease and radiculopathy, decompression plus ADR surgery did not result in a clinically important difference in outcomes after 5 years, compared with decompression and fusion surgery.
Asunto(s)
Vértebras Cervicales/cirugía , Degeneración del Disco Intervertebral/cirugía , Disco Intervertebral/cirugía , Reeemplazo Total de Disco , Adulto , Artroplastia/métodos , Descompresión Quirúrgica , Discectomía/métodos , Femenino , Estudios de Seguimiento , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Radiculopatía/cirugía , Fusión Vertebral/métodos , Suecia , Reeemplazo Total de Disco/métodos , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE Seven cervical total disc replacement (TDR) devices have received FDA approval since 2006. These devices represent a heterogeneous assortment of implants made from various biomaterials with different biomechanical properties. The majority of these devices are composed of metallic endplates with a polymer core. In this prospective, randomized multicenter study, the authors evaluate the safety and efficacy of a metal-on-metal (MoM) TDR (Kineflex|C) versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) in the treatment of single-level spondylosis with radiculopathy through a long-term (5-year) follow-up. METHODS An FDA-regulated investigational device exemption (IDE) pivotal trial was conducted at 21 centers across the United States. Standard validated outcome measures including the Neck Disability Index (NDI) and visual analog scale (VAS) for assessing pain were used. Patients were randomized to undergo TDR using the Kineflex|C cervical artificial disc or anterior cervical fusion using structural allograft and an anterior plate. Patients were evaluated preoperatively and at 6 weeks and 3, 6, 12, 24, 36, 48, and 60 months after surgery. Serum ion analysis was performed on a subset of patients randomized to receive the MoM TDR. RESULTS A total of 269 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to undergo either TDR (136 patients) or ACDF (133 patients). There were no significant differences between the TDR and ACDF groups in terms of operative time, blood loss, or length of hospital stay. In both groups, the mean NDI scores improved significantly by 6 weeks after surgery and remained significantly improved throughout the 60-month follow-up (both p < 0.01). Similarly, VAS pain scores improved significantly by 6 weeks and remained significantly improved through the 60-month follow-up (both p < 0.01). There were no significant changes in outcomes between the 24- and 60-month follow-ups in either group. Range of motion in the TDR group decreased at 3 months but was significantly greater than the preoperative mean value at the 12- and 24-month follow-ups and remained significantly improved through the 60-month period. There were no significant differences between the 2 groups in terms of reoperation/revision surgery or device-/surgery-related adverse events. The serum ion analysis revealed cobalt and chromium levels significantly lower than the levels that merit monitoring. CONCLUSIONS Cervical TDR with an MoM device is safe and efficacious at the 5-year follow-up. These results from a prospective randomized study support that Kineflex|C TDR as a viable alternative to ACDF in appropriately selected patients with cervical radiculopathy. Clinical trial registration no.: NCT00374413 (clinicaltrials.gov).
Asunto(s)
Artroplastia , Vértebras Cervicales/cirugía , Discectomía , Prótesis Articulares de Metal sobre Metal , Artroplastia/métodos , Discectomía/métodos , Humanos , Degeneración del Disco Intervertebral/cirugía , Dimensión del Dolor , Estudios Prospectivos , Reeemplazo Total de Disco/métodos , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE The authors compared the efficacy and safety of arthroplasty using the Prestige LP cervical disc with those of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for the treatment of degenerative disc disease (DDD) at 2 adjacent levels. METHODS Patients from 30 investigational sites were randomized to 1 of 2 groups: investigational patients (209) underwent arthroplasty using a Prestige LP artificial disc, and control patients (188) underwent ACDF with a cortical ring allograft and anterior cervical plate. Patients were evaluated preoperatively, intraoperatively, and at 1.5, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively. Efficacy and safety outcomes were measured according to the Neck Disability Index (NDI), Numeric Rating Scales for neck and arm pain, 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36), gait abnormality, disc height, range of motion (investigational) or fusion (control), adverse events (AEs), additional surgeries, and neurological status. Treatment was considered an overall success when all 4 of the following criteria were met: 1) NDI score improvement of ≥ 15 points over the preoperative score, 2) maintenance or improvement in neurological status compared with preoperatively, 3) no serious AE caused by the implant or by the implant and surgical procedure, and 4) no additional surgery (supplemental fixation, revision, or nonelective implant removal). Independent statisticians performed Bayesian statistical analyses. RESULTS The 24-month rates of overall success were 81.4% for the investigational group and 69.4% for the control group. The posterior mean for overall success in the investigational group exceeded that in the control group by 0.112 (95% highest posterior density interval = 0.023 to 0.201) with a posterior probability of 1 for noninferiority and 0.993 for superiority, demonstrating the superiority of the investigational group for overall success. Noninferiority of the investigational group was demonstrated for all individual components of overall success and individual effectiveness end points, except for the SF-36 Mental Component Summary. The investigational group was superior to the control group for NDI success. The proportion of patients experiencing any AE was 93.3% (195/209) in the investigational group and 92.0% (173/188) in the control group, which were not statistically different. The rate of patients who reported any serious AE (Grade 3 or 4) was significantly higher in the control group (90 [47.9%] of 188) than in the investigational group (72 [34.4%] of 209) with a posterior probability of superiority of 0.996. Radiographic success was achieved in 51.0% (100/196) of the investigational patients (maintenance of motion without evidence of bridging bone) and 82.1% (119/145) of the control patients (fusion). At 24 months, heterotopic ossification was identified in 27.8% (55/198) of the superior levels and 36.4% (72/198) of the inferior levels of investigational patients. CONCLUSIONS Arthroplasty with the Prestige LP cervical disc is as effective and safe as ACDF for the treatment of cervical DDD at 2 contiguous levels and is an alternative treatment for intractable radiculopathy or myelopathy at 2 adjacent levels. Clinical trial registration no.: NCT00637156 ( clinicaltrials.gov ).
Asunto(s)
Vértebras Cervicales/cirugía , Discectomía , Degeneración del Disco Intervertebral/cirugía , Prótesis e Implantes , Fusión Vertebral , Reeemplazo Total de Disco , Aloinjertos , Placas Óseas , Trasplante Óseo , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Satisfacción del Paciente , Complicaciones Posoperatorias , Reinserción al Trabajo , Índice de Severidad de la Enfermedad , Factores de Tiempo , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE Cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) has been demonstrated to be as safe and effective as anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) in the management of 1- and 2-level degenerative disc disease (DDD). However, there has been a lack of data to address the fundamental discrepancy between the two surgeries (CDA vs ACDF), and preservation versus elimination of motion, in the management of cervical myelopathy associated with congenital cervical stenosis (CCS). Although younger patients tend to benefit more from motion preservation, it is uncertain if CCS caused by multilevel DDD can be treated safely with CDA. METHODS Consecutive patients who underwent 3-level anterior cervical discectomy were retrospectively reviewed. Inclusion criteria were age less than 50 years, CCS (Pavlov ratio ≤ 0.82), symptomatic myelopathy correlated with DDD, and stenosis limited to 3 levels of the subaxial cervical (C3-7) spine. Exclusion criteria were ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament, previous posterior decompression surgery (e.g., laminoplasty or laminectomy), osteoporosis, previous trauma, or other rheumatic diseases that might have caused the cervical myelopathy. All these patients who underwent 3-level discectomy were divided into 2 groups according to the strategies of management: preservation or elimination of motion (the hybrid-CDA group and the ACDF group). The hybrid-CDA group underwent 2-level CDA plus 1-level ACDF, whereas the ACDF group underwent 3-level ACDF. Clinical assessment was measured by the visual analog scales (VAS) for neck and arm pain, Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores, and Nurick grades. Radiographic outcomes were measured using dynamic radiographs for evaluation of range of motion (ROM). RESULTS Thirty-seven patients, with a mean (± SD) age of 44.57 ± 5.10 years, were included in the final analysis. There was a male predominance in this series (78.4%, 29 male patients), and the mean follow-up duration was 2.37 ± 1.60 years. There were 20 patients in the hybrid-CDA group, and 17 in the ACDF group. Both groups demonstrated similar clinical improvement at 2 years' follow-up. These patients with 3-level stenosis experienced significant improvement after either type of surgery (hybrid-CDA and ACDF). There were no significant differences between the 2 groups at each of the follow-up visits postoperatively. The preoperative ROM over the operated subaxial levels was similar between both groups (21.9° vs 21.67°; p = 0.94). Postoperatively, the hybrid-CDA group had significantly greater ROM (10.65° vs 2.19°; p < 0.001) than the ACDF group. Complications, adverse events, and reoperations in both groups were similarly low. CONCLUSIONS Hybrid-CDA yielded similar clinical improvement to 3-level ACDF in patients with myelopathy caused by CCS. In this relatively young group of patients, hybrid-CDA demonstrated significantly more ROM than 3-level ACDF without adjacent-segment disease (ASD) at 2 years' follow-up. Therefore, hybrid-CDA appears to be an acceptable option in the management of CCS. The strategy of motion preservation yielded similar improvements of cervical myelopathy to motion elimination (i.e., ACDF) in patients with CCS, while the theoretical benefit of reducing ASD required further validation.
Asunto(s)
Artroplastia , Vértebras Cervicales/cirugía , Degeneración del Disco Intervertebral/cirugía , Disco Intervertebral/cirugía , Estenosis Espinal/congénito , Estenosis Espinal/cirugía , Adulto , Vértebras Cervicales/diagnóstico por imagen , Discectomía , Femenino , Estudios de Seguimiento , Humanos , Disco Intervertebral/diagnóstico por imagen , Degeneración del Disco Intervertebral/complicaciones , Degeneración del Disco Intervertebral/diagnóstico por imagen , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Dolor de Cuello/diagnóstico por imagen , Dolor de Cuello/etiología , Dolor de Cuello/cirugía , Dimensión del Dolor , Estudios Retrospectivos , Enfermedades de la Médula Espinal/diagnóstico por imagen , Enfermedades de la Médula Espinal/etiología , Enfermedades de la Médula Espinal/cirugía , Fusión Vertebral , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE The aim of this paper was to comprehensively review each of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved labels of 7 total cervical disc replacements, assess the exact methodology in which the trial was conducted, and provide a broad comparison of these devices to allow each surgeon to determine which disc best suits his or her specific treatment goals based on the specific labels and not the studies published. METHODS The FDA-approved labels for each of the 7 artificial discs were obtained from the official FDA website. These labels were meticulously compared with regard to the statistical analysis performed, the safety and efficacy data, and the randomized controlled trial that each artificial disc was involved in to obtain the FDA approval for the product or device. Both single-level and 2-level approvals were examined, and primary and secondary end points were assessed. RESULTS In the single-level group, 4 of the 7 artificial discs-Prestige LP, Prestige ST, Bryan, and Secure-C-showed superiority in overall success. Prestige ST showed superiority in 3 of 4 outcome measures (neurological success, revision surgery, and overall success), while the other aforementioned discs showed superiority in 2 or fewer measures (Prestige LP, neurological and overall success; Bryan, Neck Disability Index [NDI] and overall success; Secure-C, revision surgery and overall success; Pro-Disc C, revision surgery). The PCM and Mobi-C discs demonstrated noninferiority across all outcome measures. In the 2-level group, Prestige LP and Mobi-C demonstrated superiority in 3 outcome measures (NDI, secondary surgery, and overall success) but not neurological success. CONCLUSIONS This paper provides a comprehensive analysis of 7 currently approved and distributed artificial discs in the United States. It compares specific outcome measures of these devices against those following the standard of care, which is anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. This information will provide surgeons the opportunity to easily answer patients' questions and remain knowledgeable when discussing devices with manufacturers.
Asunto(s)
Vértebras Cervicales/cirugía , Enfermedades de la Columna Vertebral/cirugía , Reeemplazo Total de Disco/instrumentación , Reeemplazo Total de Disco/métodos , Humanos , Estados Unidos , United States Food and Drug AdministrationRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE Heterotopic ossification (HO) has been reported following total hip, knee, cervical, and lumbar arthroplasty, as well as following posterolateral lumbar fusion using recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2). Data regarding HO following anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) with rhBMP-2 are sparse. A subanalysis was done of the prospective, multicenter, investigational device exemption trial that compared rhBMP-2 on an absorbable collagen sponge (ACS) versus allograft in ACDF for patients with symptomatic single-level cervical degenerative disc disease. METHODS To assess differences in types of HO observed in the treatment groups and effects of HO on functional and efficacy outcomes, clinical outcomes from previous disc replacement studies were compared between patients who received rhBMP-2/ACS versus allograft. Rate, location, grade, and size of ossifications were assessed preoperatively and at 24 months, and correlated with clinical outcomes. RESULTS Heterotopic ossification was primarily anterior in both groups. Preoperatively in both groups, and including osteophytes in the target regions, HO rates were high at 40.9% and 36.9% for the rhBMP-2/ACS and allograft groups, respectively (p = 0.350). At 24 months, the rate of HO in the rhBMP-2/ACS group was higher than in the allograft group (78.6% vs 59.2%, respectively; p < 0.001). At 24 months, the rate of superior-anterior adjacent-level Park Grade 3 HO was 4.2% in both groups, whereas the rate of Park Grade 2 HO was 19.0% in the rhBMP-2/ACS group compared with 9.8% in the allograft group. At 24 months, the rate of inferior-anterior adjacent-level Park Grade 2/3 HO was 11.9% in the rhBMP-2/ACS group compared with 5.9% in the allograft group. At 24 months, HO rates at the target implant level were similar (p = 0.963). At 24 months, the mean length and anteroposterior diameter of HO were significantly greater in the rhBMP-2/ACS group compared with the allograft group (p = 0.033 and 0.012, respectively). Regarding clinical correlation, at 24 months in both groups, Park Grade 3 HO at superior adjacent-level disc spaces significantly reduced range of motion, more so in the rhBMP-2/ACS group. At 24 months, HO negatively affected Neck Disability Index scores (excluding neck/arm pain scores), neurological status, and overall success in patients in the rhBMP-2/ACS group, but not in patients in the allograft group. CONCLUSIONS Implantation of rhBMP-2/ACS at 1.5 mg/ml with polyetheretherketone spacer and titanium plate is effective in inducing fusion and improving pain and function in patients undergoing ACDF for symptomatic single-level cervical degenerative disc disease. At 24 months, the rate and dimensions (length and anteroposterior diameter) of HO were higher in the rhBMP-2/ACS group. At 24 months, range of motion was reduced, with Park Grade 3 HO in both treatment groups. The impact of Park Grades 2 and 3 HO on Neck Disability Index success, neurological status, and overall success was not consistent among the treatment groups. The study data may offer a deeper understanding of HO after ACDF and may pave the way for improved device designs. Clinical trial registration no.: IDE# G060021; data compared with pooled data from control arms of IDE# G010188/NCT00642876 and IDE# G000123/NCT00437190 ( www.clinicaltrials.gov ).
Asunto(s)
Aloinjertos , Proteína Morfogenética Ósea 2/administración & dosificación , Vértebras Cervicales/cirugía , Discectomía/métodos , Degeneración del Disco Intervertebral/cirugía , Osificación Heterotópica/prevención & control , Fusión Vertebral/métodos , Factor de Crecimiento Transformador beta/administración & dosificación , Implantes Absorbibles , Benzofenonas , Placas Óseas , Vértebras Cervicales/efectos de los fármacos , Colágeno , Evaluación de la Discapacidad , Implantes de Medicamentos , Humanos , Degeneración del Disco Intervertebral/diagnóstico por imagen , Cetonas , Osificación Heterotópica/diagnóstico por imagen , Dimensión del Dolor , Polietilenglicoles , Polímeros , Proteínas Recombinantes/administración & dosificación , Índice de Severidad de la Enfermedad , Tapones Quirúrgicos de Gaza , Titanio , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to report the outcome of a study of 2-level cervical total disc replacement (Mobi-C) versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). Although the long-term outcome of single-level disc replacement has been extensively described, there have not been previous reports of the 5-year outcome of 2-level cervical disc replacement. METHODS This study reports the 5-year results of a prospective, randomized US FDA investigational device exemption (IDE) study conducted at 24 centers in patients with 2-level, contiguous, cervical spondylosis. Clinical outcomes at up to 60 months were evaluated, including validated outcome measures, incidence of reoperation, and adverse events. The complete study data and methodology were critically reviewed by 3 independent surgeon authors without affiliation with the IDE study or financial or institutional bias toward the study sponsor. RESULTS A total of 225 patients received the Mobi-C cervical total disc replacement device and 105 patients received ACDF. The Mobi-C and ACDF follow-up rates were 90.7% and 86.7%, respectively (p = 0.39), at 60 months. There was significant improvement in all outcome scores relative to baseline at all time points. The Mobi-C patients had significantly more improvement than ACDF patients in terms of Neck Disability Index score, SF-12 Physical Component Summary, and overall satisfaction with treatment at 60 months. The reoperation rate was significantly lower with Mobi-C (4%) versus ACDF (16%). There were no significant differences in the adverse event rate between groups. CONCLUSIONS Both cervical total disc replacement and ACDF significantly improved general and disease-specific measures compared with baseline. However, there was significantly greater improvement in general and disease-specific outcome measures and a lower rate of reoperation in the 2-level disc replacement patients versus ACDF control patients. Clinical trial registration no. NCT00389597 ( clinicaltrials.gov ).
Asunto(s)
Vértebras Cervicales/cirugía , Discectomía/métodos , Degeneración del Disco Intervertebral/cirugía , Fusión Vertebral/métodos , Espondilosis/cirugía , Reeemplazo Total de Disco , Adolescente , Adulto , Anciano , Evaluación de la Discapacidad , Discectomía/efectos adversos , Estudios de Seguimiento , Humanos , Degeneración del Disco Intervertebral/complicaciones , Degeneración del Disco Intervertebral/diagnóstico por imagen , Estimación de Kaplan-Meier , Persona de Mediana Edad , Dolor de Cuello/diagnóstico por imagen , Dolor de Cuello/etiología , Dolor de Cuello/cirugía , Dimensión del Dolor , Calidad de Vida , Fusión Vertebral/efectos adversos , Espondilosis/complicaciones , Espondilosis/diagnóstico por imagen , Reeemplazo Total de Disco/efectos adversos , Reeemplazo Total de Disco/métodos , Resultado del Tratamiento , Adulto JovenRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE Cervical total disc replacement (TDR) has been shown in a number of prospective clinical studies to be a viable treatment alternative to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for the treatment of symptomatic degenerative disc disease. In addition to preserving motion, evidence suggests that cervical TDR may result in a lower incidence of subsequent surgical intervention than treatment with fusion. The goal of this study was to evaluate subsequent surgery rates up to 5 years in patients treated with TDR or ACDF at 1 or 2 contiguous levels between C-3 and C-7. METHODS This was a prospective, multicenter, randomized, unblinded clinical trial. Patients with symptomatic degenerative disc disease were enrolled to receive 1- or 2-level treatment with either TDR as the investigational device or ACDF as the control treatment. There were 260 patients in the 1-level study (179 TDR and 81 ACDF patients) and 339 patients in the 2-level study (234 TDR and 105 ACDF patients). RESULTS At 5 years, the occurrence of subsequent surgical intervention was significantly higher among ACDF patients for 1-level (TDR, 4.5% [8/179]; ACDF, 17.3% [14/81]; p = 0.0012) and 2-level (TDR, 7.3% [17/234]; ACDF, 21.0% [22/105], p = 0.0007) treatment. The TDR group demonstrated significantly fewer index- and adjacent-level subsequent surgeries in both the 1- and 2-level cohorts. CONCLUSIONS Five-year results showed treatment with cervical TDR to result in a significantly lower rate of subsequent surgical intervention than treatment with ACDF for both 1 and 2 levels of treatment. Clinical trial registration no.: NCT00389597 ( clinicaltrials.gov ).
Asunto(s)
Vértebras Cervicales/cirugía , Discectomía/estadística & datos numéricos , Degeneración del Disco Intervertebral/cirugía , Fusión Vertebral/estadística & datos numéricos , Reeemplazo Total de Disco/estadística & datos numéricos , Adolescente , Adulto , Anciano , Femenino , Estudios de Seguimiento , Humanos , Disco Intervertebral/cirugía , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Estudios Prospectivos , Reoperación/estadística & datos numéricos , Resultado del Tratamiento , Adulto JovenRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to evaluate the 7-year cost-effectiveness of cervical total disc replacement (CTDR) versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for the treatment of patients with single-level symptomatic degenerative disc disease. A change in the spending trajectory for spine care is to be achieved, in part, through the selection of interventions that have been proven effective yet cost less than other options. This analysis complements and builds upon findings from other cost-effectiveness evaluations of CTDR through the use of long-term, patient-level data from a randomized study. METHODS This was a 7-year health economic evaluation comparing CTDR versus ACDF from the US commercial payer perspective. Prospectively collected health care resource utilization and treatment effects (quality-adjusted life years [QALYs]) were obtained from individual patient-level adverse event reports and SF-36 data, respectively, from the randomized, multicenter ProDisc-C total disc replacement investigational device exemption (IDE) study and post-approval study. Statistical distributions for unit costs were derived from a commercial claims database and applied using Monte Carlo simulation. Patient-level costs and effects were modeled via multivariate probabilistic analysis. Confidence intervals for 7-year costs, effects, and net monetary benefit (NMB) were obtained using the nonparametric percentile method from results of 10,000 bootstrap simulations. The robustness of results was assessed through scenario analysis and within a parametric regression model controlling for baseline variables. RESULTS Seven-year follow-up data were available for more than 70% of the 209 randomized patients. In the base-case analysis, CTDR resulted in mean per-patient cost savings of $12,789 (95% CI $5362-$20,856) and per-patient QALY gains of 0.16 (95% CI -0.073 to 0.39) compared with ACDF over 7 years. CTDR was more effective and less costly in 90.8% of probabilistic simulations. CTDR was cost-effective in 99.8% of sensitivity analysis simulations and generated a mean incremental NMB of $20,679 (95% CI $6053-$35,377) per patient at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/QALY. CONCLUSIONS Based on this modeling evaluation, CTDR was found to be more effective and less costly over a 7-year time horizon for patients with single-level symptomatic degenerative disc disease. These results are robust across a range of scenarios and perspectives and are intended to support value-based decision making.
Asunto(s)
Discectomía/economía , Degeneración del Disco Intervertebral/economía , Años de Vida Ajustados por Calidad de Vida , Fusión Vertebral/economía , Reeemplazo Total de Disco/economía , Vértebras Cervicales/cirugía , Análisis Costo-Beneficio , Discectomía/métodos , Femenino , Humanos , Degeneración del Disco Intervertebral/cirugía , Masculino , Estudios Prospectivos , Fusión Vertebral/métodos , Reeemplazo Total de Disco/métodos , Resultado del Tratamiento , Estados Unidos , United States Food and Drug AdministrationRESUMEN
OBJECT This study compared the safety and efficacy of treatment with the PRESTIGE LP cervical disc versus a historical control anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). METHODS Prospectively collected PRESTIGE LP data from 20 investigational sites were compared with data from 265 historical control ACDF patients in the initial PRESTIGE Cervical Disc IDE study. The 280 investigational patients with single-level cervical disc disease with radiculopathy and/or myelopathy underwent arthroplasty with a low-profile artificial disc. Key safety/efficacy outcomes included Neck Disability Index (NDI), Neck and Arm Pain Numerical Rating Scale scores, 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) score, work status, disc height, range of motion, adverse events (AEs), additional surgeries, and neurological status. Clinical and radiographic evaluations were completed preoperatively, intraoperatively, and at 1.5, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively. Predefined Bayesian statistical methods with noninformative priors were used, along with the propensity score technique for controlling confounding factors. Analysis by independent statisticians confirmed initial statistical findings. RESULTS The investigational and control groups were mostly similar demographically. There was no significant difference in blood loss (51.0 ml [investigational] vs 57.1 ml [control]) or hospital stay (0.98 days [investigational] vs 0.95 days [control]). The investigational group had a significantly longer operative time (1.49 hours vs 1.38 hours); 95% Bayesian credible interval of the difference was 0.01-0.21 hours. Significant improvements versus preoperative in NDI, neck/arm pain, SF-36, and neurological status were achieved by 1.5 months in both groups and were sustained at 24 months. Patient follow-up at 24 months was 97.1% for the investigational group and 84.0% for the control group. The mean NDI score improvements versus preoperative exceeded 30 points in both groups at 12 and 24 months. SF-36 Mental Component Summary superiority was established (Bayesian probability 0.993). The mean SF-36 PCS scores improved by 14.3 points in the investigational group and by 11.9 points in the control group from baseline to 24 months postoperatively. Neurological success at 24 months was 93.5% in the investigational group and 83.5% in the control group (probability of superiority ~ 1.00). At 24 months, 12.1% of investigational and 15.5% of control patients had an AE classified as device or device/surgical procedure related; 14 (5.0%) investigational and 21 (7.9%) control patients had a second surgery at the index level. The median return-to-work time for the investigational group was 40 days compared with 60 days for the control group (p = 0.020 after adjusting for preoperative work status and propensity score). Following implantation of the PRESTIGE LP device, the mean angular motion was maintained at 12 months (7.9°) and 24 months (7.5°). At 24 months, 90.0% of investigational and 87.7% of control patients were satisfied with the results of surgery. PRESTIGE LP superiority on overall success (without disc height success), a composite safety/efficacy end point, was strongly supported with 0.994 Bayesian probability. CONCLUSIONS This device maintains mean postoperative segmental motion while providing the potential for biomechanical stability. Investigational patients reported significantly improved clinical outcomes compared with baseline, at least noninferior to ACDF, up to 24 months after surgery.
RESUMEN
OBJECT: The aim of this study is to evaluate the relationship between preoperative opioid strength and outcomes of anterior cervical decompressive surgery. METHODS: A retrospective cohort of 1004 patients enrolled in 1 of 2 investigational device exemption studies comparing cervical total disc arthroplasty (TDA) and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for single-level cervical disease causing radiculopathy or myelopathy was selected. At a preoperative visit, opioid use data, Neck Disability Index (NDI) scores, 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) scores, and numeric rating scale scores for neck and arm pain were collected. Patients were divided into strong (oxycodone/morphine/meperidine), weak (codeine/propoxyphene/hydrocodone), and opioid-naïve groups. Preoperative and postoperative (24 months) outcomes scores were compared within and between groups using the paired t-test and ANCOVA, respectively. RESULTS: Patients were categorized as follows: 226 strong, 762 weak, and 16 opioid naïve. The strong and weak groups were similar with respect to age, sex, race, marital status, education level, Worker's Compensation status, litigation status, and alcohol use. At 24-month follow-up, no differences in change in arm or neck pain scores (arm: strong -52.3, weak -50.6, naïve -54.0, p = 0.244; neck: strong -52.7, weak -50.8, naïve -44.6, p = 0.355); NDI scores (strong -36.0, weak -33.3, naïve -32.3, p = 0.181); or SF-36 Physical Component Summary scores (strong: 14.1, weak 13.3, naïve 21.7, p = 0.317) were present. Using a 15-point improvement in NDI to determine success, the authors found no between-groups difference in success rates (strong 80.6%, weak 82.7%, naïve 73.3%, p = 0.134). No difference existed between treatment arms (TDA vs ACDF) for any outcome at any time point. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative opioid strength did not adversely affect outcomes in this analysis. Careful patient selection can yield good results in this patient population.
Asunto(s)
Analgésicos Opioides/administración & dosificación , Discectomía/métodos , Manejo del Dolor/métodos , Radiculopatía/cirugía , Enfermedades de la Médula Espinal/cirugía , Fusión Vertebral/métodos , Reeemplazo Total de Disco/métodos , Adulto , Descompresión Quirúrgica , Evaluación de la Discapacidad , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Dimensión del Dolor , Estudios Prospectivos , Estudios Retrospectivos , Encuestas y Cuestionarios , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
The risk of postoperative cancer following the use of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein (BMP)-2 in spinal fusion is one potential complication that has received significant interest. Until recently, there has been little clinical evidence to support the assertion of potential cancer induction after BMP use in spinal surgery. This report aims to summarize the findings from clinical data available to date from the Yale University Open Data Access (YODA) project as well as more recently published large database studies regarding the association of BMP use in spinal fusion and the risk of postoperative cancer. A detailed review was based on online databases, primary studies, FDA reports, and bibliographies of key articles for studies that assessed the efficacy and safety of BMP in spinal fusion. In an analysis of the YODA project, one meta-analysis detected a statistically significant increase in cancer occurrence at 24 months but not at 48 months, and the other meta-analysis did not detect a significant increase in postoperative cancer occurrence. Analysis of 3 large health care data sets (Medicare, MarketScan, and PearlDiver) revealed that none were able to detect a significant increase in risk of malignant cancers when BMP was used compared with controls. The potential risk of postoperative cancer formation following the use of BMP in spinal fusion must be interpreted on an individual basis for each patient by the surgeon. There is no conclusive evidence that application of the common formulations of BMP during spinal surgery results in the formation of cancer locally or at a distant site.
Asunto(s)
Proteínas Morfogenéticas Óseas/efectos adversos , Neoplasias/inducido químicamente , Medición de Riesgo , Fusión Vertebral , HumanosRESUMEN
OBJECT: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of 2-level total disc replacement (TDR) using a Mobi-C cervical artificial disc at 48 months' follow-up. METHODS: A prospective randomized, US FDA investigational device exemption pivotal trial of the Mobi-C cervical artificial disc was conducted at 24 centers in the U.S. Three hundred thirty patients with degenerative disc disease were randomized and treated with cervical total disc replacement (225 patients) or the control treatment, anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) (105 patients). Patients were followed up at regular intervals for 4 years after surgery. RESULTS: At 48 months, both groups demonstrated improvement in clinical outcome measures and a comparable safety profile. Data were available for 202 TDR patients and 89 ACDF patients in calculation of the primary endpoint. TDR patients had statistically significantly greater improvement than ACDF patients for the following outcome measures compared with baseline: Neck Disability Index scores, 12-Item Short Form Health Survey Physical Component Summary scores, patient satisfaction, and overall success. ACDF patients experienced higher subsequent surgery rates and displayed a higher rate of adjacent-segment degeneration as seen on radiographs. Overall, TDR patients maintained segmental range of motion through 48 months with no device failure. CONCLUSIONS: Four-year results from this study continue to support TDR as a safe, effective, and statistically superior alternative to ACDF for the treatment of degenerative disc disease at 2 contiguous cervical levels. Clinical trial registration no.: NCT00389597 ( clinicaltrials.gov ).