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 disease.Spine J. 2009 Apr; 9(4):275-86.SJ
BACKGROUND CONTEXT
Cervical total disc replacement (TDR) is intended to address radicular pain and preserve functional motion between two vertebral bodies in patients with symptomatic cervical disc disease (SCDD).
PURPOSE
The purpose of this trial is to compare the safety and efficacy of cervical TDR, ProDisc-C (Synthes Spine Company, L.P., West Chester, PA), to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) surgery for the treatment of one-level SCDD between C3 and C7.
STUDY DESIGN/SETTING
The study was conducted at 13 sites. A noninferiority design with a 1:1 randomization was used.
PATIENT SAMPLE
Two hundred nine patients were randomized and treated (106 ACDF; 103 ProDisc-C).
OUTCOME MEASURES
Visual analog scale (VAS) pain and intensity (neck and arm), VAS satisfaction, neck disability index (NDI), neurological exam, device success, adverse event occurrence, and short form-36 (SF-36) standardized questionnaires.
METHODS
A prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial was performed. Patients were enrolled and treated in accordance with the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved protocol. Patients were assessed pre- and postoperatively at six weeks, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months.
RESULTS
Demographics were similar between the two patient groups (ProDisc-C: 42.1+/-8.4 years, 44.7% males; Fusion: 43.5 +/- 7.1 years, 46.2% males). The most commonly treated level was C5-C6 (ProDisc-C: 56.3%; Fusion=57.5%). NDI and SF-36 scores were significantly less compared with presurgery scores at all follow-up visits for both the treatment groups (p<.0001). VAS neck pain intensity and frequency as well as VAS arm pain intensity and frequency were statistically lower at all follow-up timepoints compared with preoperative levels (p<.0001) but were not different between treatments. Neurologic success (improvement or maintenance) was achieved at 24 months in 90.9% of ProDisc-C and 88.0% of Fusion patients (p=.638). Results show that at 24 months postoperatively, 84.4% of ProDisc-C patients achieved a more than or equal to 4 degrees of motion or maintained motion relative to preoperative baseline at the operated level. There was a statistically significant difference in the number of secondary surgeries with 8.5% of Fusion patients needing a re-operation, revision, or supplemental fixation within the 24 month postoperative period compared with 1.8% of ProDisc-C patients (p=.033). At 24 months, there was a statistically significant difference in medication usage with 89.9% of ProDisc-C patients not on strong narcotics or muscle relaxants, compared with 81.5% of Fusion patients.
CONCLUSIONS
The results of this clinical trial demonstrate that ProDisc-C is a safe and effective surgical treatment for patients with disabling cervical radiculopathy because of single-level disease. By all primary and secondary measures evaluated, clinical outcomes after ProDisc-C implantation were either equivalent or superior to those same clinical outcomes after Fusion.
