Jack E. Zigler

Results of the prospective, randomized, multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study of the ProDisc-L total disc replacement versus circumferential fusion for the treatment of 1-level degenerative disc disease.

Study Design. A prospective, randomized, multicenter, Food and Drug Administration-regulated Investigational Device Exemption clinical trial. Objective. To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the ProDisc®-L (Synthes Spine, West Chester, PA) lumbar total disc replacement compared to circumferential spinal fusion for the treatment of discogenic pain at 1 vertebral level between L3 and S1. Summary of Background Data. As part of the Investigational Device Exemption clinical trial, favorable single center results of lumbar total disc replacement with the ProDisc®-L have been reported previously. Methods. Two hundred eighty-six (286) patients were treated on protocol. Patients were evaluated before and after surgery, at 6 weeks, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. Evaluation at each visit included patient self-assessments, physical and neurologic examinations, and radiographic evaluation. Results. Safety of ProDisc®-L implantation was demonstrated with 0% major complications. At 24 months, 91.8% of investigational and 84.5% of control patients reported improvement in the Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI]) from preoperative levels, and 77.2% of investigational and 64.8% of control patients met the ≥15% Oswestry Disability Index improvement criteria. Overall neurologic success in the investigational group was superior to the control group (91.2% investigational and 81.4% control; P = 0.0341). At 6 weeks and 3 months follow-up time points, the ProDisc®-L patients recorded SF-36 Health Survey scores significantly higher than the control group (P = 0.018, P = 0.0036, respectively). The visual analog scale pain assessment showed statistically significant improvement from preoperative levels regardless of treatment (P < 0.0001). Visual analog scale patient satisfaction at 24 months showed a statistically significant difference favoring investigational patients over the control group (P = 0.015). Radiographic range of motion was maintained within a normal functional range in 93.7% of investigational patients and averaged 7.7°. Conclusions. ProDisc®-L has been found to be safe and efficacious. In properly chosen patients, ProDisc®-L has been shown to be superior to circumferential fusion by multiple clinical criteria.

ProDisc-C and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion as surgical treatment for single-level cervical symptomatic degenerative disc disease: five-year results of a Food and Drug Administration study.

Study Design. Randomized controlled trial. Objective. Analyze the clinical outcomes at 5 years comparing cervical total disc replacement (TDR) with ProDisc-C (Synthes Spine USA Products; LLC, West Chester, PA) with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). Summary of Background Data. Previous reports of 2- and 4-year results have shown that ProDisc-C, a TDR for surgical treatment of patients experiencing single-level symptomatic cervical disc disease between C3 and C7, is safe and effective. Methods. Two hundred nine patients (103 ProDisc-C and 106 ACDF) from 13 sites were randomized and treated. Results including neck disability index, visual analog scale (VAS) neck and arm pain, Short Form-36 (SF-36), neurological examination, device success, adverse event occurrence, and VAS patient satisfaction were analyzed. Results. Demographics were similar between the 2 patient groups (ProDisc-C: 42.1 ± 8.4 yr, 44.7% males; ACDF: 43.5 ± 7.1 yr, 46.2% males). Rates of follow-up at 2 years were 98.1% ProDisc-C and 94.8% ACDF, and at 5 years 72.7% ProDisc-C and 63.5% ACDF. For all clinical outcomes for both groups, there was a statistically and clinically significant improvement at 2 and 5 years compared with baseline. At 5 years, ProDisc-C patients had statistically significantly less neck pain intensity and frequency. Both groups scored high VAS satisfaction scores at 5 years, with ProDisc-C 86.56 and ACDF 82.74. There were no reports of device failures or implant migration with ProDisc-C. The ProDisc-C patients maintained motion at their index level. At 5 years, the ProDisc-C patients had a statistically significantly lower rate of reoperation compared with ACDF patients (2.9% vs. 11.3%). Conclusion. Five-year results show that TDR with ProDisc-C is a safe and effective treatment of single-level symptomatic cervical disc disease. Clinical outcomes were comparable with ACDF. ProDisc-C patients maintained motion at the index level and had significantly less neck pain intensity and frequency as well as a lower probability of secondary surgery.

Five-Year Reoperation Rates, Cervical Total Disc Replacement Versus Fusion, Results of a Prospective Randomized Clinical Trial

Study Design. Prospective randomized clinical trial. Objective. Determine the reasons for, and rates of, secondary surgical intervention up to 5 years at both the index and adjacent levels in patients treated with cervical total disc replacement (TDR) or anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). Patients undergoing TDR received ProDisc-C. Summary of Background Data. Several outcome-based prospective, randomized clinical trials have shown cervical TDR to be equivalent, if not superior, to fusion. The ability of TDR to allow decompression while maintaining motion has led many to suggest that adjacent-level degeneration and reoperation rates may be decreased when compared with fusion. Methods. A total of 209 patients were treated and randomized (TDR, n = 103; ACDF, n = 106) at 13 sites. A secondary surgical intervention at any level was considered a reoperation. Results. At 5 years, patients who received ProDisc-C had statistically significant higher probability of no secondary surgery at the index and adjacent levels than patients who underwent ACDF (97.1% vs. 85.5%, P = 0.0079). No reoperations in patients who received ProDisc-C were performed for implant breakages or device failures. For patients who underwent ACDF, the most common reason for reoperation at the index level was pseudarthrosis, and for patients who underwent both ACDF and TDR, the most common reason for adjacent-level surgery was recurrent neck and/or arm pain. Conclusion. Five-year follow-up of a prospective randomized clinical trial revealed 5-fold difference in reoperation rates when comparing patients who underwent ACDF (14.5%) with patients who underwent TDR (2.9%). These findings suggest the durability of TDR and its potential to slow the rate of adjacent-level disease. Level of Evidence: 1

Five-year results of the prospective, randomized, multicenter, Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study of the ProDisc-L total disc replacement versus circumferential arthrodesis for the treatment of single-level degenerative disc disease: Clinical article

OBJECT The purpose of this study was to evaluate the long-term safety and effectiveness of the ProDisc-L total disc replacement (TDR) as part of an FDA-mandated postmarket approval study. This report summarizes the clinical findings after 5 years of follow-up. METHODS Two hundred thirty-six patients were treated and followed up for 5 years; 161 TDRs and 75 fusions had been performed in these patients. The primary outcome was a 10-component success end point. Secondary outcome measures included neurological status, secondary surgery, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), visual analog scale (VAS) assessing pain and satisfaction, radiographic data, narcotic use, activity, and recreation status. Patients were monitored through their 5-year postoperative visits under the FDA postmarket surveillance provisions in the original investigational device exemption approval. RESULTS The overall follow-up rate at 5 years was 81.8%. Study success demonstrated that TDR was noninferior to fusion with a 12.5% margin (p = 0.0099). Both TDR and fusion treatment groups maintained significant improvement on the ODI at 5 years compared with baseline (p < 0.0001). Secondary surgeries at the index level were performed in 12% of fusion patients and 8% of TDR patients. Radiographically, none of the TDRs developed spontaneous fusion. The segmental range of motion following TDR remained within normal range, although it decreased by approximately 0.5° in years 3 to 5. The VAS pain scores decreased from preoperative values by 48% in both treatment groups at 5 years. Patient satisfaction remained high in both groups (77%), while the percentage of patients indicating that they would have the surgery again was higher in TDR patients (82.5%) than in fusion patients (68.0%). CONCLUSIONS Patients in both groups maintained significant improvement during the 5-year follow-up. The TDR group had significantly better improvement on some scales. Although TDR patients avoid the stiffness of fusion and are more satisfied than fusion patients, both fusion and TDR are reasonable surgical options in this specific patient population.

Five-year adjacent-level degenerative changes in patients with single-level disease treated using lumbar total disc replacement with ProDisc-L versus circumferential fusion

OBJECT The authors report the 5-year results for radiographically demonstrated adjacent-level degenerative changes from a prospective multicenter study in which patients were randomized to either total disc replacement (TDR) or circumferential fusion for single-level lumbar degenerative disc disease (DDD). METHODS Two hundred thirty-six patients with single-level lumbar DDD were enrolled and randomly assigned to 2 treatment groups: 161 patients in the TDR group were treated using the ProDisc-L (Synthes Spine, Inc.), and 75 patients were treated with circumferential fusion. Radiographic follow-up data 5 years after treatment were available for 123 TDR patients and 43 fusion patients. To characterize adjacent-level degeneration (ALD), radiologists at an independent facility read the radiographic films. Adjacent-level degeneration was characterized by a composite score including disc height loss, endplate sclerosis, osteophytes, and spondylolisthesis. At 5 years, changes in ALD (ΔALDs) compared with the preoperative assessment were reported. RESULTS Changes in ALD at 5 years were observed in 9.2% of TDR patients and 28.6% of fusion patients (p = 0.004). Among the patients without adjacent-level disease preoperatively, new findings of ALD at 5 years posttreatment were apparent in only 6.7% of TDR patients and 23.8% of fusion patients (p = 0.008). Adjacent-level surgery leading to secondary surgery was reported for 1.9% of TDR patients and 4.0% of fusion patients (p = 0.6819). The TDR patients had a mean preoperative index-level range of motion ([ROM] of 7.3°) that decreased slightly (to 6.0°) at 5 years after treatment (p = 0.0198). Neither treatment group had significant changes in either ROM or translation at the superior adjacent level at 5 years posttreatment compared with baseline. CONCLUSIONS At 5 years after the index surgery, ProDisc-L maintained ROM and was associated with a significantly lower rate of ΔALDs than in the patients treated with circumferential fusion. In fact, the fusion patients were greater than 3 times more likely to experience ΔALDs than were the TDR patients. Clinical trial registration no.: NCT00295009.

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

Background 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. Methods 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. Results 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). Conclusions 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.

ProDisc-C Total Disc Replacement Versus Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion for Single-Level Symptomatic Cervical Disc Disease: Seven-Year Follow-up of the Prospective Randomized U.S. Food and Drug Administration Investigational Device Exemption Study.

BACKGROUND In patients with single-level cervical degenerative disc disease, total disc arthroplasty can relieve radicular pain and preserve functional motion between two vertebrae. We compared the efficacy and safety of cervical total disc arthroplasty with that of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for the treatment of single-level cervical degenerative disc disease between C3-C4 and C6-C7. METHODS Two hundred and nine patients at thirteen sites were randomly treated with either total disc arthroplasty with ProDisc-C (n = 103) or with ACDF (n = 106). Patients were assessed preoperatively; at six weeks and three, six, twelve, eighteen, and twenty-four months postoperatively; and then annually until seven years postoperatively. Outcome measures included the Neck Disability Index (NDI), the Short Form-36 (SF-36), postoperative neurologic parameters, secondary surgical procedures, adverse events, neck and arm pain, and satisfaction scores. RESULTS At seven years, the overall follow-up rate was 92% (152 of 165). There were no significant differences in demographic factors, follow-up rate, or patient-reported outcomes between groups. Both procedures were effective in reducing neck and arm pain and improving and maintaining function and health-related quality of life. Neurologic status was improved or maintained in 88% and 89% of the patients in the ProDisc-C and ACDF groups, respectively. After seven years of follow-up, thirty secondary surgical procedures had been performed in nineteen (18%) of 106 patients in the ACDF group compared with seven secondary surgical procedures in seven (7%) of 103 patients in the ProDisc-C group (p = 0.0099). There were no significant differences in the rates of any device-related adverse events between the groups. CONCLUSIONS Total disc arthroplasty with ProDisc-C is a safe and effective surgical treatment of single-level symptomatic cervical degenerative disc disease. Clinical outcomes after total disc arthroplasty with ProDisc-C were similar to those after ACDF. Patients treated with ProDisc-C had a lower probability of subsequent surgery, suggesting that total disc arthroplasty provides durable results and has the potential to slow the rate of adjacent-level disease. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Prospective, Randomized Comparison of One-level Mobi-C Cervical Total Disc Replacement vs. Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: Results at 5-year Follow-up

Introduction There is increasing interest in the role of cervical total disc replacement (TDR) as an alternative to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). Multiple prospective randomized studies with minimum 2 year follow-up have shown TDR to be at least as safe and effective as ACDF in treating symptomatic degenerative disc disease at a single level. The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes of cervical TDR using the Mobi-C® with ACDF at 5-year follow-up. Methods This prospective, randomized, controlled trial was conducted as a Food and Drug Administration regulated Investigational Device Exemption trial across 23 centers with 245 patients randomized (2:1) to receive TDR with Mobi-C® Cervical Disc Prosthesis or ACDF with anterior plate and allograft. Outcome assessments included a composite overall success score, Neck Disability Index (NDI), visual analog scales (VAS) assessing neck and arm pain, Short Form-12 (SF-12) health survey, patient satisfaction, major complications, subsequent surgery, segmental range of motion, and adjacent segment degeneration. Results The 60-month follow-up rate was 85.5% for the TDR group and 78.9% for the ACDF group. The composite overall success was 61.9% with TDR vs. 52.2% with ACDF, demonstrating statistical non-inferiority. Improvements in NDI, VAS neck and arm pain, and SF-12 scores were similar between groups and were maintained from earlier follow-up through 60 months. There was no significant difference between TDR and ACDF in adverse events or major complications. Range of motion was maintained with TDR through 60 months. Device-related subsequent surgeries (TDR: 3.0%, ACDF: 11.1%, p<0.02) and adjacent segment degeneration at the superior level (TDR: 37.1%, ACDF: 54.7%, p<0.03) were significantly lower for TDR patients. Conclusions Five-year results demonstrate the safety and efficacy of TDR with the Mobi-C as a viable alternative to ACDF with the potential advantage of lower rates of reoperation and adjacent segment degeneration, in the treatment of one-level symptomatic cervical degenerative disc disease. Clinical Relevance This prospective, randomized study with 5-year follow-up adds to the existing literature indicating that cervical TDR is a viable alternative to ACDF in appropriately selected patients. Level of Evidence This is a Level I study.

Reoperations in cervical total disc replacement compared with anterior cervical fusion: results compiled from multiple prospective food and drug administration investigational device exemption trials conducted at a single site.

Study Design. This study is based on a post hoc analysis of data collected from multiple prospective, randomized studies conducted at the same site. Objective. The purpose of this study was to compare the reoperation rates in patients with cervical total disc replacement (TDR) versus patients with anterior cervical fusion (ACF). Summary of Background Data. One important evaluation of any new technology is the safety, including the need for future surgery. One of the potential benefits of cervical TDR compared with ACF, is the possibility of reducing or eliminating degeneration of the adjacent segment. It is also important to determine if the new technology introduces new problems, not seen with the current standard of care. Methods. Data were collected prospectively for patients enrolled in 1 of 6 Food and Drug Administration regulated investigational device exemption trials conducted at a single site. Results are based on 136 patients (84 TDR, 52 ACF) with mean follow-up of 55.1 months (range, 24–98 mo). Data collected included general demographics, operative details, length of follow-up, the occurrence of a reoperation, the reason for the reoperation, length of time between the index study procedure and reoperation. For this study, reoperation was defined as any surgical procedure involving the cervical spine. The reoperation rates as well as the length of time after the index surgery the reoperation occurred were compared for the TDR and ACF groups. Results. The reoperation rate in the TDR group was significantly less than in the ACF group (8.3% vs. 21.2%; P < 0.05). There was a trend for the reoperation rate attributed to adjacent segment degeneration to be significantly less in the TDR group than in the ACF group (4.8% vs. 13.5%; 0.05 <P < 0.07). In the ACF group, 4 patients (7.7%) underwent reoperation for pseudoarthrosis. Reoperations occurred significantly later in the TDR group versus the fusion group when comparing the mean number of months between index and subsequent procedures (P < 0.01). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis also found that the TDR group had a significantly longer survival period before undergoing reoperation than ACF (P < 0.05). Conclusion. This study found the reoperation rate was significantly less in the TDR group compared with ACF group and that the survival time to reoperation was greater in the TDR group. Reoperations for adjacent segment changes were less frequent and occurred later in patients who were randomized to TDR compared with ACF. Level of Evidence: 2

Lumbar spinal arthroplasty: analysis of one center's twenty best and twenty worst clinical outcomes.

Study Design. This is a retrospective analysis of data that were collected prospectively from 2 concurrent FDA IDE lumbar arthroplasty clinical trials performed at a single center. Objectives. The purpose of this study was to determine if factors differentiating those patients with the best and worst clinical outcomes from total disc arthroplasty (TDR) could be identified. Summary of Background Data. Overall the results of TDR have been favorable, including recent results from 2 FDA IDE trials conducted in the United States. However, as with any surgical procedure, there were some patients with extremely good outcomes, and some with poor outcomes. If factors differentiating these groups could be identified, this may help refine patient selection criteria and improve future results. Methods. The databases of Charite and ProDisc patients at a single site were reviewed to identify patients who reached the 24-month follow-up period. A total of 203 patients, 63 who were implanted with the Charite prosthesis, and 140 who were implanted with the ProDisc prosthesis, were identified. The percentage change in the preoperative to postoperative VAS and Oswestry scores were used to identify the 10 best and 10 worst outcomes for each of the device types. Logistic regression analysis was conducted to determine which of a battery of demographic and clinical assessments were related to the best/worst group classification. Results. Results of the regression analysis found that the only factor significantly related to clinical outcome was the length of time off work before surgery. None of the demographic variables, preoperative VAS or Oswestry scores or radiographic assessment of device placement, were significantly related to clinical outcome. Patients who were off work for shorter durations, or not at all, were more likely to be in the best-outcome group compared with patients who were off work for an extended period of time before surgery. Conclusion. This study suggests that among patients undergoing TDR, the length of time off work before surgery was related to outcome. No additional factors related to the best/worst classification were identified in the current study.