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
Open Access
- 1 December 2010
- journal article
- Published by International Journal of Spine Surgery in International Journal of Spine Surgery
- Vol. 4 (4) , 122-128
Abstract
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. 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. 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). 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.Keywords
This publication has 17 references indexed in Scilit:
- Results of the prospective, randomized, controlled multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study of the ProDisc-C total disc replacement versus anterior discectomy and fusion for the treatment of 1-level symptomatic cervical disc diseaseThe Spine Journal, 2009
- Artificial Disc Versus FusionSpine, 2007
- Anterior approaches to fusion of the cervical spine: a metaanalysis of fusion ratesJournal of Neurosurgery: Spine, 2007
- Clinical and radiographic analysis of cervical disc arthroplasty compared with allograft fusion: a randomized controlled clinical trialJournal of Neurosurgery: Spine, 2007
- Assessment of adjacent-segment disease in patients treated with cervical fusion or arthroplasty: a prospective 2-year studyJournal of Neurosurgery: Spine, 2005
- Long-Term Results After Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion With Allograft and PlatingSpine, 2005
- Adjacent segment degeneration and adjacent segment disease: the consequences of spinal fusion?The Spine Journal, 2004
- Adjacent segment disease after anterior cervical interbody fusionThe Spine Journal, 2004
- Anterior Cervical Plating Enhances Arthrodesis after Discectomy and Fusion with Cortical AllograftNeurosurgery, 2002
- Anterior Cervical Fusion for Degenerated or Protruded DiscsSpine, 1984