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]

Background: The published two-year results of the pivotal U.S. Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption trial with the use of the Bryan cervical disc arthroplasty compared with anterior cervical discectomy with fusion for treating single-level degenerative cervical disc disease revealed a significantly superior overall success rate in the arthroplasty group. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the midterm safety and effectiveness of the Bryan disc as an alternative to arthrodesis following anterior cervical discectomy. Methods: A prospective, multicenter randomized clinical trial was undertaken for the treatment of persistent radiculopathy or myelopathy due to single-level cervical disc herniations or spondylosis. Patients were randomized to treatment with either the Bryan disc (the arthroplasty group; 242 patients) or anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (the fusion group; 221 patients). Patients completed preoperative and postoperative self-assessment forms at specified intervals and had radiographs made preoperatively, at six weeks, and at three, six, twelve, twenty-four, and forty-eight months after surgery. The primary outcome measure was overall success, a composite variable of safety and efficacy measures. Numerous secondary measures were assessed. The follow-up data for up to twenty-four months have been previously published. We report in the present study the forty-eight-month data collected on 181 patients who received the Bryan disc and 138 patients who underwent anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Results: The study groups were demographically similar. Substantial reduction in Neck Disability Index scores occurred in both groups compared with preoperative values. The greater improvement in the Neck Disability Index score in the Bryan disc cohort persisted through the four-year follow-up period (p < 0.001). The four-year overall success rates were 85.1% and 72.5% for the arthroplasty and fusion groups, respectively (p = 0.004). The improvement in the arm pain score was substantial for both groups and significantly greater in the Bryan disc cohort (p = 0.028), and the neck pain scores showed persistently greater improvement in the Bryan disc group at forty-eight months of follow-up (p = 0.001). Short Form-36 physical component score improvement remained greater among the Bryan disc cohort (p = 0.007). The mean range of motion for the Bryan disc was 8.08° and 8.48° at twenty-four and forty-eight months, respectively. Total and serious adverse event rates were similar between the groups. Conclusions: The forty-eight-month follow-up data in the present report showed consistent, sustained significantly superior outcomes for cervical spine arthroplasty compared with cervical spine fusion. The arthroplasty cohort continued to show significantly greater improvements in Neck Disability Index, neck pain score, arm pain score, and Short Form-36 physical component score, as well as the primary outcome measure, overall success, at forty-eight months following surgery. [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]

Abstract: Background context: The rationale for motion preservation by disc replacement after anterior cervical discectomy is to diminish long-term morbidity secondary to adjacent segment degeneration. However, these disc prostheses will be subject to wear and its possible adverse consequences. Purpose: Assess the in vitro and in vivo wear properties of the Bryan Cervical Disc and the early clinical results. Study design: In vitro mechanical testing, caprine animal model and prospective European human trial. Outcome measure: In vitro mechanical testing used American Society for Testing and Materials standards to measure wear rates and debris. Caprine results were analyzed by histopathologic analysis by a blinded veterinary pathologist. Clinical outcomes were measured by Odoms''s criteria, independent radiologic analysis and Short Form–36. Methods: In vitro wear testing in cervical spine simulator for up to 40 M cycles. Wear rates were determined and particles analyzed microscopically. The in vivo inflammatory response was studied in goats that had discectomy at C4–C5. They were sacrificed between 3 and 12 months and histopathologically were compared with controls who had fusions with titanium plates. A prospective clinical trial of 136 patients with minimum 1-year follow-up was analyzed using validated questionnaires and radiographs. Results: In vitro wear averaged approximately 1.76% by weight at 10 M cycles and 18% at 40 M cycles. Wear debris were present in the periprosthetic tissues in 4 of 11 animals without inflammatory response. The early clinical results were satisfactory in over 90% of patients. Conclusion: The in vivo and in vitro wear properties are satisfactory for the expected duration of life of the prosthesis. The early clinical results are satisfactory and equal to fusion. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background: Although there have been case reports describing the use of cervical disc arthroplasty for the treatment of myelopathy, there is a concern that motion preservation may maintain microtrauma to the spinal cord, negatively affecting the clinical results. As we are not aware of any studies on the use of arthroplasty in this scenario, we performed a cross-sectional analysis of two large, prospective, randomized multicenter trials to evaluate the efficacy of cervical disc arthroplasty for the treatment of myelopathy. Methods: The patients in the current study were a cohort of patients who were enrolled in the United States Food and Drug Administration Investigational Device Exemption studies of the Prestige ST and Bryan disc replacements (Medtronic, Memphis, Tennessee). The inclusion criteria were myelopathy and spondylosis or disc herniation at a single level from C3 to C7. Clinical outcome measures were collected preoperatively and at sixweeks, three months, six months, twelve months, and twenty-four months postoperatively. Results: A total of 199 patients were included in the present study; 106 patients (53%) underwent arthroplasty, whereas ninety-three (47%) underwent arthrodesis. The Neck Disability Index, Short Form-36 scores, and specific arm and neck pain scores improved significantlyfrom baseline at all time points. Patients in all fourgroups had improvement in the postoperative neurological status and gait function; at twenty-four months after surgery, 90% (95% confidence interval, 77.8% to 96.6%) of the patients in the arthroplasty group and 81% (95% confidence interval, 64.9% to 92.0%) of those in the arthrodesis group had improvement in or maintenance of the neurological status in the Prestige ST trial and 90% (95% confidence interval, 75.8% to 97.1%) of the patients in the arthroplasty group and 77% (95% confidence interval, 57.7% to 90.1%) of those in the arthrodesis group had improvement in or maintenance of the neurological status in the Bryan trial. Conclusions: We found that patients in both the arthroplasty and arthrodesis groups had improvement following surgery; furthermore, improvement was similar between the groups, with no worsening of myelopathy in the arthroplasty group. While the findings at two years postoperatively suggest that arthroplasty is equivalent to arthrodesis for the treatment of cervical myelopathy for a single-level abnormality localized to the disc space, the present study did not evaluate the treatment of retrovertebral compression as occurs in association with ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament, and we cannot comment upon the treatment of this condition. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level II. See Instructions to Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

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]