Search

Various total disc replacement (TDR) designs have been compared to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) with favorable short and long-term outcomes in FDA-approved investigational device exemption (IDE) trials. The unique design of M6-C, with a compressible viscoelastic nuclear core and an annular structure, has previously demonstrated favorable clinical outcomes through 24 months. To evaluate the long-term safety and effectiveness of the M6-C compressible artificial cervical disc and compare to ACDF at 5 years. Prospective, multicenter, concurrently and historically controlled, FDA-approved IDE clinical trial. Subjects with one-level symptomatic degenerative cervical radiculopathy were enrolled and received M6-C (n=160) or ACDF (n=189) treatment as part of the IDE study. Safety outcomes were evaluated at 5 years for all subjects. The primary effectiveness endpoint was available at 5 years for 113 M6-C subjects and 106 ACDF controls. The primary endpoint of this analysis was composite clinical success (CCS) at 60 months. Secondary endpoints were function and pain (neck disability index, VAS), physical quality of life (SF-36, SF-12), safety, neurologic, and radiographic assessments. Propensity score subclassification was used to control for selection bias and match baseline covariates of the control group to the M6-C subjects. Sixty-month CCS rates were estimated for each treatment group using a generalized linear model controlling for propensity score. At 5 years postoperatively, the M6-C treatment resulted in 82.3% CCS while the ACDF group showed 67.0% CCS (superiority p=.013). Secondary endpoints indicated that significantly more M6-C subjects achieved VAS neck and arm pain improvements and showed maintained or improved physical functioning on quality-of-life measures compared to baseline assessments. The M6-C group-maintained flexion-extension motion, with significantly greater increases from baseline disc height and disc angle than observed in the control group. The rates of M6-C subsequent surgical interventions (SSI; 3.1%) and definitely device- or procedure-related serious adverse events (SAE failure; 3.1%) were similar to ACDF rates (SSI=5.3%, SAE failure=4.8%; p>.05 for both). Subjects treated with the M6-C artificial disc demonstrated superior 5-year achievement of clinical success when compared to ACDF controls. In addition, significantly more subjects in the M6-C group showed improved pain and physical functioning scores than observed in ACDF subjects, with no difference in reoperation rates or safety outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Design: A prospective, randomized, controlled, parallel, single-blinded noninferiority multicenter pivotal FDA IDE trial.Objective: The objective of this study was to investigate efficacy and safety of i-Factor Bone Graft (i-Factor) compared with local autograft in single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for cervical radiculopathy.Summary Of Background Data: i-Factor is a composite bone substitute material consisting of the P-15 synthetic collagen fragment adsorbed onto anorganic bone mineral and suspended in an inert biocompatible hydrogel carrier. P-15 has demonstrated bone healing efficacy in dental, orthopedic, and nonhuman applications.Methods: Patients randomly received either autograft (N = 154) or i-Factor (N = 165) in a cortical ring allograft. Study success was defined as noninferiority in fusion, Neck Disability Index (NDI), and Neurological Success endpoints, and similar adverse events profile at 12 months.Results: At 12 months (follow-up rate 87%), both i-Factor and autograft subjects demonstrated a high fusion rate (88.97% and 85.82%, respectively, noninferiority P = 0.0004), significant improvements in NDI (28.75 and 27.40, respectively, noninferiority P < 0.0001), and high Neurological Success rate (93.71% and 93.01%, respectively, noninferiority P < 0.0001). There was no difference in the rate of adverse events (83.64% and 82.47% in the i-Factor and autograft groups, respectively, P = 0.8814). Overall success rate consisting of fusion, NDI, Neurological Success and Safety Success was higher in i-Factor subjects than in autograft subjects (68.75% and 56.94%, respectively, P = 0.0382). Improvements in VAS pain and SF-36v2 scores were clinically relevant and similar between the groups. A high proportion of patients reported good or excellent Odom outcomes (81.4% in both groups).Conclusion: i-Factor has met all four FDA mandated noninferiority success criteria and has demonstrated safety and efficacy in single-level ACDF for cervical radiculopathy. i-Factor and autograft groups demonstrated significant postsurgical improvement and high fusion rates.Level Of Evidence: 1. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is commonly treated with decompression and fusion. The LimiFlex Dynamic Sagittal Tether (DST) is an investigational stabilization device for patients with DS and LSS. The purpose of this study is to assess the clinical and radiographic outcomes of decompression and DST compared to transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) for patients with DS and LSS. Multicenter prospective concurrently controlled study. Patients undergoing treatment (decompression and DST or TLIF stabilization) of Grade I Meyerding lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. Patients undergoing treatment (decompression and DST or TLIF stabilization) of Grade I Meyerding lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. Patients with single-level Grade I DS with LSS were enrolled in the FDA-IDE study (NCT03115983) comparing decompression with DST and decompression with TLIF. Clinical and radiographic outcomes were assessed at baseline and 6-week, 3, 6, 12 and 24-month follow-up. All propensity score (PS) selected patients who had 24-month follow-up were included in this interim analysis. Summary statistics are reported, as well as paired t-tests to assess within-group changes. At 24 months, 228 PS-selected patients (129DST/99TLIF) had clinical follow-up and 197 (117DST/80TLIF) had radiographic follow-up. Mean characteristics of DST and TLIF groupswere: age 65.5/64.1 yrs; BMI 28.1/30.5; CCI 0.43/0.41, respectively. Mean perioperative outcomes for DST/TLIF were: procedure time 112/189 min; EBL 53/232 mL; LOS 0.7/3.2 nights. A significant reduction at 24 months for mean VAS-leg/hip (79.5 to 22.9), VAS-back (66.8 to 19.0) and ODI (52.8 to 13.2) was reported for DST patients (all p < 0.01) with 91% achieving 15-point ODI improvement. TLIF patients demonstrated similar improvements for VAS-leg (80.6 to 24.4), VAS-back (68.1 to 26.1) and ODI (52.3 to 20.9) (all p < 0.01), with 80% achieving 15-point ODI improvement. While there was no difference at baseline, the DST group had lower ODI at all postoperative timepoints. Within the 24 months, 9% of each group had additional surgery at the index or adjacent level. At 24 months, the DST group had mean reductions of 1.7° ROM and 0.4mm translation in flexion/extension images compared to 3.8° and 1.0mm reductions in the TLIF group. Considering the index and adjacent segments together (IAS), the index segment accounted for 30% of IAS ROM at baseline and 27% at 24 months in the DST group compared to 29% at baseline and 13% at 24 months in the TLIF group. These results suggest that decompression with DST stabilization for spondylolisthesis can achieve significant clinical improvement as is expected with fusion, without an increase in reoperations during the 24 months postoperative period. Similarly, statistically significant improvements in patient-reported outcomes were demonstrated in each group, with lower disability scores in the DTB group at all postoperative timepoints. Imaging demonstrated no increased instability in the DST group with maintained distribution of motion between the index and adjacent segments. While these groups were PS-selected, further analyses should include quantitative comparison between groups with PS-adjusted differences per the predefined composite clinical success criteria for a definitive comparison of outcomes. LimiFlex Dynamic Sagittal Tether (Investigational/Not Approved). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is commonly treated with decompression and fusion. The LimiFlex Dynamic Sagittal Tether (DST) is an investigational stabilization device for patients with DS and LSS. Assess return to work (RTW) and activities of daily living (ADL) receiving either decompression and DST stabilization (D+DST) or decompression and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (D+TLIF). Interim analysis from a multicenter, concurrently controlled study. Patients undergoing treatment (D+DST or D+TLIF) of Grade I Meyerding lumbar DS. Propensity score (PS) selected patients with 12-month follow-up were included. Time to RTW and activities of daily living, as well as Oswestry disability index (ODI). PS-selected IDE study subjects with 12 months of follow-up were included in this analysis. Study records queried for work status preoperatively and at 12 months, as well as time to RTW and ADL, and change in disability (Oswestry Disability Index; ODI) at 12 months vs preop. Outcomes were compared using student's t-tests. PS-selected subjects totaled 267 (136 D+DST, 131 D+TLIF). Preoperatively, 49% of D+DST and 43% of D+TLIF subjects were working (p=0.14) and 7% D+DST and 11% D+TLIF were not working due to spinal condition (NWSC) (p=0.13). At 12 months postop, 44% of D+DST and 34% of D+TLIF subjects were working (p=0.05) and 2% D+DST and 10% D+TLIF were NWSC (p<0.01). Proportion of D+DST NWSC was significantly lower 12 months postop compared to preop (p=0.02). Mean±SD RTW time for D+DST/D+TLIF subjects was 5.4±6.6/11.8±9.6 weeks (p<0.01) and return to ADL time was 5.5±6.5/10.0±9.5 weeks (p<0.01). Mean±SD reduction in disability at 12 months from baseline was 38.1±18.4 for the D+DST group and 31.8±20.7 for the D+TLIF group (p<0.01) with effect sizes of -2.1 and -1.5, respectively. The primary objective of surgery for symptomatic DS is resolution of symptoms so patients can return to their normal ADL and work. Both D+DST and D+TLIF treated patients demonstrated a significant reduction in disability at 12-month follow-up. Significantly faster RTW and ADL were observed for D+DST compared to D+TLIF patients, by an average of more than 5 weeks. The proportion of D+DST patients NWSC was significantly less than at 12 months. Results indicate a significant advantage of earlier recovery for the D+DST patients allowing earlier RTW and earlier increase in ADLs compared to D+TLIF, with similar or greater improvements in disability after one year for patients treated with decompression and stabilization for symptomatic DS. Longer-term follow-up assessment with propensity score-adjusted outcomes will demonstrate whether this advantage and long-term outcomes are durable and generalizable. This abstract does not discuss or include any applicable devices or drugs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Design. Prospective randomized controlled trial. Objective. Compare range of motion (ROM) and adjacent segment degeneration (ASD) following cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) at 20-year follow-up. Summary of Background Data. Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion is the standard of treatment for single-level cervical disc degeneration causing radiculopathy. CDA is claimed to reduce shear strain, and adjacent-level ROM changes are hypothesized to hasten ASD with ACDF. Materials and Methods. This study collected data on 47 patients randomized to ACDF or CDA. Lateral cervical spine radiographs were evaluated preoperatively, postoperatively, and at 20 years for alignment, ROM, ASD, and heterotopic ossification. Results. Eighty-two percent (18/22) of CDA patients and 84% (21/25) of ACDF patients followed up at 20 years. At 20 years, total cervical (C2--C7) ROM was statistically different between the CDA and fusion groups (47.8° vs. 33.4°, P=0.005). Total cervical ROM was not significantly different between preoperative and 20-year periods following CDA (45.6° vs. 47.4°, P=0.772) or ACDF (40.6° vs.33.0°, P=0.192). Differences in postoperative and 20-year index-level ROM following CDA were not significant (10.1° vs. 10.2°, P=0.952). Final ASD grading was statistically lower following CDA versus ACDF at both adjacent levels (P<0.005). Twenty-year adjacent-level ossification development was increased following ACDF versus CDA (P<0.001). Polyethylene mean thickness decreased from 9.4 mm immediately postoperatively to 9.1 mm at 20-year follow up (P=0.013). Differences in adjacent-level ROM from preoperative to 20-year follow-up in both the ACDF and CDA groups did not meet statistical significance (P>0.05). Conclusions. Cervical disc arthroplasty maintains index-level and total cervical ROM with very long-term follow-up. Total cervical ROM was higher at 20 years in CDA relative to ACDF. CDA results in lower rates of ASD and adjacent-level ossification development than ACDF. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Case: A 61-year-old woman with recurrent left L5 radiculopathy underwent revision L4-5 decompression complicated by incidental durotomy requiring primary repair. Postoperative course was complicated by wound drainage and headache. Repeat magnetic resonance imaging demonstrated cerebrospinal fluid dissecting a plane deep to the dura mater but superficial to the arachnoid, with the collection compressing the cauda equina in an atypical horizontal and linear fashion. Nonoperative treatment was ineffective, and she required revision decompression and dural repair. Conclusion: Spine surgeons should recognize this finding on postoperative imaging as a potential sign of an incomplete dural repair necessitating return to the operating room. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND CONTEXT Thirty percent of Americans have low back pain (LBP) at any given time, leading to approximately 50 million physician visits in the U.S. annually. For patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP), the etiology can be difficult to diagnose and then treat using either current nonsurgical therapies, with inherent patient adherence challenges, or surgical interventions, with associated long recovery times. Antonacci et al, following anatomic study, proposed that a portion of pain previously ascribed to the disc actually emanates from the vertebral body endplate nociceptors which communicate to the central nervous system (CNS) through the basivertebral nerve (BVN). We report on the two-year outcome data of the treatment arm patients in the SMART trial, which studied RF BVN ablation to treat CLBP. PURPOSE To determine the longer term efficacy of basivertebral nerve ablation, for the treatment of chronic low back pain. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING Prospective, randomized, double-blinded, sham control study that was an FDA approved clinical trial. Fifteen sites in the US and three in Germany participated. PATIENT SAMPLE Skeletally mature patients with chronic (>6 months), isolated low back (lumbar) pain and no neurogenic leg pain, who had not responded to at least six months of nonoperative management (conservative care) were eligible for the SMART study. Recent MRI had to demonstrate either Type 1 or 2 Modic changes at three or less contiguous vertebral bodies. OUTCOME MEASURES ODI, Safety, VAS. METHODS A total of 128 patients, from the per-protocol treatment arm of the SMART trial, a double-blind sham-controlled randomized trial, were followed for up to 24 months. ODI and VAS instruments were used to collect patient reported outcomes at baseline, 2 weeks, 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 12 months, and 24 months. RESULTS ODI and VAS data were available on 106 and 104 patients at 24 months respectively. The mean baseline ODI in the treatment arm was 42.4, decreasing to 22.6 at 12 months and 18.8 at 24 months. The mean baseline VAS in the treatment arm was 6.73, decreasing to 3.96 at 12 months and 3.13 at 24 months. Using a paired t -test comparing the 12 and 24-month VAS observations, the mean score at 24 months was significantly improved compared to 12 months (3.80 vs. 3.13, p=.004). CONCLUSIONS The SMART trial demonstrates that BVN ablation is statistically and clinically superior to the sham intervention, and that the degree of ODI improvement is approximately one disability category. Longitudinal follow-up of these patients demonstrates that ablation of the BVN for the relief of CLBP is a durable procedure with continuing improvement in patient reported ODI and VAS scores at up to two years. FDA DEVICE/DRUG STATUS Intracept System (Approved for this indication). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Context: Various designs of total disc replacement (TDR) devices have been compared to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) with favorable outcomes in FDA-approved investigational device exemption trials. The design of M6-C with a compressible viscoelastic nuclear core and an annular structure is substantially different than prior designs and has previously demonstrated favorable kinematics and clinical outcomes in small case series.Purpose: To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the novel M6-C compressible artificial cervical disc compared with ACDF for subjects with single-level degenerative cervical radiculopathy.Study Design/setting: Prospective, multicenter, concurrently and historically controlled, FDA-approved investigational device exemption clinical trial.Patient Sample: Subjects with one-level symptomatic degenerative cervical radiculopathy were enrolled and assigned to receive M6-C or ACDF.Outcome Measures: Pain and function (Neck Disability Index, VAS), quality of life (SF-36), safety, neurologic, and radiographic assessments of motion (both flexion extension and lateral bending) were performed. The primary clinical endpoint was composite clinical success (CCS) at 24 months.Methods: Using propensity score subclassification to control for selection bias, 160 M6-C subjects were compared to a matched subset of 189 ACDF controls (46 concurrent and 143 historical controls).Results: Both ACDF and M6-C subjects reported significant improvements in patient-reported outcomes at all time points over baseline. Overall SF-36 Physical Component Score and neck and arm pain scores were significantly improved for M6-C as compared to ACDF treatment. CCS and mean Neck Disability Index improvements were similar between M6-C and ACDF. Correspondingly, there were significantly fewer subjects that utilized pain medication or opioids following M6-C treatment at 24 months relative to baseline. Range of motion was maintained in subjects treated with M6-C. Subsequent surgical interventions, dysphagia rates, and serious adverse events were comparable between groups.Conclusions: M6-C treatment demonstrated both safety and effectiveness for the treatment of degenerative cervical radiculopathy. Treatment with M6-C demonstrated noninferiority for the primary endpoint, indicating a similar ability to achieve CCS at 24 months. However, for the secondary endpoints, M6-C subjects demonstrated significantly improved pain and function compared to ACDF subjects, while maintaining range of motion, improving quality of life, and decreasing analgesic and opioid usage at 2 years postoperatively relative to baseline. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article, the author reflects on a research related to treatment of cervical radiculopathy by anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). Topics discussed include frequent adjacent-level degeneration as compared to arthroplasty, satisfactory results shown for cervical arthroplasty in clinical trials, and cervical fusion expected to be supplanted by cervical radiculopathy.

i-FACTOR is a composite bone substitute material consisting of a P-15 synthetic collagen fragment adsorbed onto an organic bone mineral and suspended in an inert biocompatible hydrogel carrier. Previous analyses of the US FDA IDE study demonstrated the benefits of i-FACTOR compared to local autograft bone in single-level ACDF at 12- and 24-months postoperative. We report 6-year clinical and radiological outcomes of post-approval study. Subjects from a completed, prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter clinical trial that was conducted at 22 North American sites were enrolled in a post-approval study and we report 6-year outcomes. Of 319 subjects that participated in the IDE study, 220 were enrolled into post-approval 6 years follow-up autograft (n = 114) or i-FACTOR (n = 105) in a cortical ring allograft. Radiological, clinical, and patient-reported outcomes. Subjects completed prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter clinical trial that was conducted at 22 North American sites were enrolled into post-approval study 6 years follow-up. Fusion rates at 72 months were 99.0% in i-FACTOR subjects and 98.2% in autograft subjects, with a difference of 0.8% (95% C.I., (95% CI -2.3%, 4.0%). Mean improvement in NDI in i-FACTOR subjects was 28.56 (95% CI 24.79, 32.33) compared to 29.17 (95% CI 25.46, 32.88) in autograft subjects, with a difference of -0.61 (2.793) (95% CI -6.10, 4.88). Neurologic success rate at 72 months was 95.89% in i-FACTOR subjects and 93.33% in autograft subjects, with a difference of 2.6% (95% CI, -4.70%, 9.81%). Overall success rate was 68% in i-Factor and 62% in autograft subjects. Safety outcomes were similar between the 2 treatment groups. Secondary surgery at any cervical level occurred in 20 (18.9%) i-FACTOR subjects and 23 (20.2%) autograft subjects (p=0.866). Pain and SF-36 outcomes were similar between the groups at all study visits. There were no adverse reactions associated with i-FACTOR. At 6 years, i-FACTOR in ACDF resulted in similar outcomes compared to local autograft. Safety outcomes are acceptable and clinical and functional outcomes for i-FACTOR in the previous studies are confirmed. I-Factor (Approved for this indication) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Context: Addition of interbody fusion via a transforaminal approach (TLIF) has become a popular surgical option for treatment of degenerative lumbar conditions. Although technically more complicated than posterolateral fusion surgery (PLF), it has been suggested that TLIF provides superior immediate stability and protects against early pedicle screw loosening. This theory has never been formally examined in a clinical study.Purpose: To determine the impact of TLIF on early pedicle screw loosening and radiographic fusion rates compared with PLF using pedicle screws alone in the treatment of single level lumbar degenerative conditions.Study Design: Retrospective computed tomography (CT) based review.Patient Sample: One hundred ninety-three patients underwent TLIF+PLF with local autograft bone or PLF alone with local autograft bone.Outcome Measures: Radiographic fusion rates and screw loosening were measured at 6 and 12 months using strict CT criteria. Patient self-reported outcome measures included Visual Analog Scale for low back pain and leg pain and Oswestry Disability Index.Methods: Postoperative thin-cut CTs were examined for pedicle screw loosening and radiographic fusion status. Early screw loosening rates were determined using 6-month postoperative CT, whereas radiographic fusion rates were determined using 12-month postoperative CT. One-way analysis of variance was used to determine significant differences in mean outcome scores and other continuous measures between groups at baseline and follow-up. Chi-square test of independence or Fisher's exact test was used to compare proportions between groups on categorical measures.Results: Eighty-three patients underwent TLIF+PLF (Group A) and 115 patients underwent PLF alone (Group B). At 6-month follow-up, loosening was observed in 49 of 792 total screws (6.19%). Of Group A, 7.23% of patients demonstrated loosening of one or more screws compared with 18.3% of Group B (Chi-Square value 4.98; p=.0256). Six-month radiographic fusion rates were 36.1% in Group A versus 44.3% in Group B. Twelve-month radiographic fusion rates increased to 58.6% in Group A versus 73.1% in Group B. Among Group A patients not yet fused at 6 months, screw loosening was associated with a 0% rate of radiographic fusion at 12 months versus 41.2% without screw loosening. Rates for Group B were 6.25% and 70.3%, respectively. Patient age was a significant independent predictor of loosening (p=.0336).Conclusions: TLIF appears to have a protective effect, reducing rates of early screw loosening by approximately 60% versus PLF. However, this effect appears independent of actual overall radiographic fusion rates which may be approximately 20% lower with TLIF at 12 months. TLIF may have advantages in patients where early loosening is a particular concern, for example, in the setting of increased patient age. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Context: Radiologic evidence of successful lumbar fusion has traditionally been based on bridging bone spanning the intertransverse processes (posterolateral fusion or PLF) or disc space (interbody fusion, or IBF). Often, postoperative computed tomography (CT) of unsuccessful PLF and IBF demonstrates bridging bone across the facet joints or connecting the medial transverse process to the ipsilateral superior articular facet of the caudal vertebra. The significance of this finding in terms of implant stability and clinical outcomes has not previously been reported.Purpose: To determine rates of facet joint fusion (FJF)/posteromedial fusion (PMF) following single-level PLF surgery, with or without interbody. A secondary goal was to determine comparative outcomes associated with isolated FJF/PMF versus PLF and IBF.Study Design: Retrospective CT-based review.Patient Sample: Two hundred-three patients underwent single-level PLF surgery with local autograft bone or PLF+IBF with local autograft bone.Outcome Measures: Fusion was assessed at 6-months and 12-months postoperatively using strict CT criteria. Patient reported outcome measures included visual analogue scale (VAS) scores for back pain and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and SF-36.Methods: Thin-cut CTs were examined to determine whether successful fusion had occurred in seven different anatomic locations. One-way analysis of variance was used to determine significant differences in mean outcome scores and other continuous measures between groups at baseline and follow-up. Chi-square test of independence or Fisher's exact test was used to compare proportions between groups on categorical measures.Results: Two hundred-three patients and 157 patients completed 6- and 12 month follow-up, respectively. At 12 months, 35.1% of PLF patients demonstrated successful unilateral/bilateral PLF. Including unilateral or bilateral FJF/PMF, the fusion rate was 73.4%. Among PLF+IBF patients, 38.1% demonstrated successful IBF/PLF. Including unilateral or bilateral FJF/PMF, the fusion rate was 55.6%. All fusion groups demonstrated significant improvement in back pain and leg pain scores as well as ODI and SF-36 PF at 6- and 12 months compared with pre-op. No significant difference in any outcome measure, rates of implant loosening or reoperation was observed between successful PLF/IBF and FJF/PMF groups.Conclusions: FJF/PMF is often observed on postoperative CT evaluation following surgery originally performed to achieve PLF or IBF. Short-term follow-up suggests no significant difference in implant loosening rates or patient reported outcomes when FJF/PMF is observed versus PLF or IBF in such patients. Long-term clinical outcomes of FJF/PMF versus PLF or IBF remain unknown. These findings apply solely to single-level instrumented spinal fusion surgery utilizing pedicle screws with or without IBF. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Design: Prospective, randomized, single-center, clinical trial.Objective: To prospectively examine the 7- and 10-year outcomes of cervical arthroplasty to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF).Summary Of Background Data: Degeneration of the cervical discs causing radiculopathy is a frequent source of surgical intervention, commonly treated with ACDF. Positive clinical outcomes are associated with arthrodesis techniques, yet there remains a long-term concern for adjacent segment change. Cervical disc arthroplasty has been designed to mitigate some of the challenges associated with arthrodesis whereas providing for a similar positive neurological outcome. As data has been collected from numerous prospective US FDA IDE trials, longer term outcomes regarding adjacent segment change may be examined.Methods: As part of an FDA IDE trial, a single center collected prospective outcomes data on 47 patients randomized in a 1:1 ratio to ACDF or arthroplasty.Results: Success of both surgical interventions remained high at the 10-year interval. Both arthrodesis and arthroplasty demonstrated statistically significant improvements in neck disability index, visual analog scale neck and arm pain scores at all intervals including 7- and 10-year periods. Arthroplasty demonstrated an advantage in comparison to arthrodesis as measured by final 10-year NDI score (8 vs. 16, P = 0.0485). Patients requiring reoperation were higher in number in the arthrodesis cohort (32%) in comparison with arthroplasty (9%) (P = 0.055).Conclusion: At 7 and 10 years, cervical arthroplasty compares favorably with ACDF as defined by standard outcomes scores in a highly selected population with radiculopathy.Level Of Evidence: 1. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many early cervical total disc replacements (TDRs) produced motion through a ball-and-socket action, with metal endplates articulating with a plastic core. PEEK is used increasingly for spinal implants due to its mechanical properties and lack of artifact on imaging. A cervical TDR was designed with commercially pure titanium-coated PEEK endplates and a biconvex zirconia toughened alumina ceramic core. The purpose of this study was to compare this PEEK-on-ceramic TDR to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) to treat single-level cervical disc degeneration. This was a prospective, nonrandomized, multicenter Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Investigational Device Exemption (IDE) trial comparing the investigational group to a propensity-matched historic control group. Patients received the PEEK-on-ceramic Simplify® Cervical Artificial Disc (n=150 patients from 16 sites). The historic control group included 117 propensity-matched ACDF patients from an earlier cervical TDR IDE trial employing the same inclusion/exclusion criteria. All patients were treated for single-level symptomatic cervical disc degeneration. The primary outcome was a composite 5-point success classification at 24-month follow-up requiring: >15 point (of 100) improvement in Neck Disability Index (NDI) score; 2) maintenance/improvement in neurologic status; 3) no device failure; 4) no reoperation/revision/removal and/or supplemental fixation at the index level, and 5) no major adverse events. Outcome measures included NDI, visual analog scale (VAS) assessing neck and arm pain, neurological status, adverse events and subsequent surgery. Radiographic assessment included flexion/extension range of motion. Facet joints were assessed at 24 months comparing pre- to postoperative MRI images using a published 4-point scale. Evaluations were performed preoperatively and postoperatively within 2 and 6 weeks, and 3, 6, 12 and 24 months. The control was propensity match with ACDF patients from an earlier TDR vs ACDF trial, which used the same inclusion criteria and primary outcome assessments. The overall composite success rate was significantly greater in the TDR group vs ACDF (93.0% vs 73.6%; p<0.001). Mean NDI, neck pain and arm pain scores improved significantly in both groups at all follow-up points. Mean NDI scores in the TDR group were significantly lower than ACDF scores at all follow-up points all p<0.01). Secondary surgical intervention was undertaken in 4 (2.7%) patients at the index level in the TDR group and 6 (5.1%) in the ACDF group. There were no significant differences in the rates of serious adverse events when comparing the two groups. The mean segmental range of motion of the treated level in the TDR group was 7.3° prior to surgery. This increased to 8.6° at 3-month follow-up and continued to increase to 9.6° at 24 months (p<0.001). Facet joint assessment by MRI at 24-month follow-up in the TDR group showed little change from preoperative. The results of this study found that the Simplify® Cervical Artificial Disc produced outcomes similar or superior on some measures, including superiority in the composite success classification, compared with ACDF, for the treatment of single-level symptomatic cervical disc degeneration. ROM at the treated level increased from the preoperative value and was maintained throughout follow-up. Safety of the PEEK-on-ceramic disc was established with no device failures in the series. These results support that the device is a viable alternative to ACDF. Simplify Cervical Disc Replacement (Approved for this indication) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Interspinous process distraction (IPD) devices aim to alleviate back and leg pain by limiting extension and unloading the 3-joint complex at the affected lumbar level. IPDs may offer a treatment option for painful degenerative disc disease (DDD) that is not yet indicated for fusion or disc replacement. To compare the safety and effectiveness of IPD and nonoperative treatment after 2 years for the treatment of moderate lumbar DDD. A prospective, randomized, controlled FDA IDE clinical trial at 23 US centers (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00456378). A total of 278 patients with moderate low back pain for less than 1 year and radiographic evidence of single-level DDD between L2 and L5 who failed at least 6 weeks but less than 6 months of conservative management were randomized and treated with investigational IPD (n=181) or control nonoperative treatment (n=97). The primary endpoint was Overall Success, a composite variable that included: 1) Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score improvement of ≥ 15 points; and 2) no serious adverse event (AE) caused by the implant or by both the implant and surgical procedure (IPD) or caused by the nonoperative treatment (control); and 3) no secondary surgery (IPD) or treatment surgery (control) at the involved level. Additional safety and effectiveness endpoints included back and leg pain numerical (0-20) rating scales, SF-36 PCS/MCS, AEs and secondary surgeries. Investigational treatment consisted of the IPD implantation (without decompression) and nonoperative treatments, as necessary. Control treatment consisted of information/ education on low back pain, medication, physical therapy, and epidural and/or facet joint steroidal injections. Clinical and radiographic assessments were performed preoperatively, intra-operatively, and postoperatively up to 2 years. Statistical analyses used Bayesian methods with non-informative priors. Last observation was carried forward (LOCF) for patients lost to follow-up including patients receiving surgery (control crossovers) or additional surgery (IPD investigational) at the involved level. Baseline demographic characteristics and outcomes scores were not statistically different between the two groups, except back pain (16.8 for investigational vs 16.1 for control, p=0.033). The IPD rate of Overall Success at 24-months was statistically superior to control (observed rate of 63.0% vs 13.4%, respectively; posterior probability of superiority (pps) > 99.9%). The improvement in outcomes for IPD was statistically superior to control (pps > 99.9%) for: ODI (26.4 vs 1.1), back pain (8.4 vs 1.2), leg pain (4.9 vs -1.1, PCS (12.6 vs.1.4), and MCS (4.4 vs -0.8). Spinous process bony erosion increased slowly to 33.7% (61/181) of patients but was not related to clinical outcomes. Treatment-related serious AEs in the control group were associated with increasing low back pain. Fifteen (8.3%) IPD and 34 (35.1%) control patients experienced a treatment-related serious AE. Twenty (11.0%) IPD patients had secondary surgery and 10 (10.3%) control patients had treatment surgery at the index level. After 6 months of nonoperative treatment, control patients had the option to crossover to IPD: 57 (58.8%) control patients had crossed over by 24 months. These analyses support the superiority of this IPD over conservative care for moderate back pain in appropriately selected patients. DIAM™ Spinal Stabilization System (Investigational/Not approved) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A response from the authors of the article "Anterior versus posterior surgical approaches to treat cervical spondylotic myelopathy: outcomes of the prospective multicenter AOSpine North America CSM Study in 264 patients" is presented.