Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 9 of 9 items for

  • Author or Editor: Randall Dryer x
Clear All Modify Search
Restricted access

J. Kenneth Burkus, Randall F. Dryer and John H. Peloza

Object

The aim of this study was to determine the incidence and assess specific risk factors in the postoperative development of retrograde ejaculation (RE) in men treated for degenerative lumbar disc disease at the L4–5 or L5–S1 level with stand-alone anterior interbody implants with or without recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein–2 (rhBMP-2).

Methods

Patients enrolled in 5 prospective, randomized, multicenter FDA-approved investigational device exemption studies were observed for a minimum of 2 years to assess the rate of RE. Five hundred eight men with symptomatic single-level lumbar degenerative disc disease with up to Grade 1 spondylolisthesis underwent anterior lumbar interbody surgery with stand-alone anterior implants at either L4–5 or L5–S1. All patient self-reported and physician-documented adverse events were recorded over the entire course of follow-up. In the investigational groups, 207 patients were treated with an open surgical procedure using dual paired constructs and rhBMP-2 on an absorbable collagen sponge. The control groups (n = 301) were treated with lumbar fusion cage implants and iliac crest autograft or a metal-on-metal disc arthroplasty device. Multivariate analyses of RE were performed to assess the influence of treatment (rhBMP-2), surgical approach, and treated level. Data were analyzed for each trial individually and for the data pooled from the 5 trials.

Results

Retrograde ejaculation occurred at the highest rates in the earliest clinical trial. Of the 146 men, 6 (4.1%) developed RE postoperatively. In subsequent studies, the rates of RE ranged from 0% to 2.1%. Combining the data from the 5 trials, RE was reported in 7 (3.4%) of the 207 patients who received the rhBMP-2 treatment compared with 5 (1.7%) of the 301 patients who received the autograft or lumbar disc treatment (p = 0.242, Fisher exact test). Cases of RE were reported in 7 (1.6%) of 445 patients who underwent a retroperitoneal spinal exposure; 5 RE cases were reported in 58 patients (8.6%) who underwent a transperitoneal approach. The difference in surgical approaches was significant (p = 0.007, Fisher exact test). There was no difference in the rate of RE based on the lumbar level exposed (p = 0.739). Multivariate analyses were consistent with the conclusions from Fisher exact tests. In the initial rhBMP-2 trial, after adjusting for effects of surgical approach and treated level, the difference in RE between the treatment groups (rhBMP-2 vs autograft or disc arthroplasty) was not significant (p = 0.177); however, the difference in RE between the retroperitoneal and transperitoneal approaches was significant (p = 0.029).

Conclusions

In these 5 prospective randomized trials involving anterior lumbar interbody surgery, the use of rhBMP-2 was associated with a higher incidence of RE (3.4% vs 1.7%) but did not reach statistical significance. Based on surgical approach, the difference in rates of RE was statistically significant. This study reports on the outcomes of 5 prospective randomized FDA-approved investigational device exemption trials. Registration for studies became law in 2007. Four of these trials were completed before the law went into effect. The registration number for the lumbar disc arthroplasty trial is NCT00635843.

Full access

Paul M. Arnold, Karen K. Anderson, Abdulhafez Selim, Randall F. Dryer and J. Kenneth Burkus

OBJECTIVE

Heterotopic ossification (HO) has been reported following total hip, knee, cervical, and lumbar arthroplasty, as well as following posterolateral lumbar fusion using recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein–2 (rhBMP-2). Data regarding HO following anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) with rhBMP-2 are sparse. A subanalysis was done of the prospective, multicenter, investigational device exemption trial that compared rhBMP-2 on an absorbable collagen sponge (ACS) versus allograft in ACDF for patients with symptomatic single-level cervical degenerative disc disease.

METHODS

To assess differences in types of HO observed in the treatment groups and effects of HO on functional and efficacy outcomes, clinical outcomes from previous disc replacement studies were compared between patients who received rhBMP-2/ACS versus allograft. Rate, location, grade, and size of ossifications were assessed preoperatively and at 24 months, and correlated with clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

Heterotopic ossification was primarily anterior in both groups. Preoperatively in both groups, and including osteophytes in the target regions, HO rates were high at 40.9% and 36.9% for the rhBMP-2/ACS and allograft groups, respectively (p = 0.350). At 24 months, the rate of HO in the rhBMP-2/ACS group was higher than in the allograft group (78.6% vs 59.2%, respectively; p < 0.001). At 24 months, the rate of superior-anterior adjacent-level Park Grade 3 HO was 4.2% in both groups, whereas the rate of Park Grade 2 HO was 19.0% in the rhBMP-2/ACS group compared with 9.8% in the allograft group. At 24 months, the rate of inferior-anterior adjacent-level Park Grade 2/3 HO was 11.9% in the rhBMP-2/ACS group compared with 5.9% in the allograft group. At 24 months, HO rates at the target implant level were similar (p = 0.963). At 24 months, the mean length and anteroposterior diameter of HO were significantly greater in the rhBMP-2/ACS group compared with the allograft group (p = 0.033 and 0.012, respectively). Regarding clinical correlation, at 24 months in both groups, Park Grade 3 HO at superior adjacent-level disc spaces significantly reduced range of motion, more so in the rhBMP-2/ACS group. At 24 months, HO negatively affected Neck Disability Index scores (excluding neck/arm pain scores), neurological status, and overall success in patients in the rhBMP-2/ACS group, but not in patients in the allograft group.

CONCLUSIONS

Implantation of rhBMP-2/ACS at 1.5 mg/ml with polyetheretherketone spacer and titanium plate is effective in inducing fusion and improving pain and function in patients undergoing ACDF for symptomatic single-level cervical degenerative disc disease. At 24 months, the rate and dimensions (length and anteroposterior diameter) of HO were higher in the rhBMP-2/ACS group. At 24 months, range of motion was reduced, with Park Grade 3 HO in both treatment groups. The impact of Park Grades 2 and 3 HO on Neck Disability Index success, neurological status, and overall success was not consistent among the treatment groups. The study data may offer a deeper understanding of HO after ACDF and may pave the way for improved device designs.

Clinical trial registration no.: IDE# G060021; data compared with pooled data from control arms of IDE# G010188/NCT00642876 and IDE# G000123/NCT00437190 (www.clinicaltrials.gov).

Free access

Todd H. Lanman, J. Kenneth Burkus, Randall G. Dryer, Matthew F. Gornet, Jeffrey McConnell and Scott D. Hodges

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess long-term clinical safety and effectiveness in patients undergoing anterior cervical surgery using the Prestige LP artificial disc replacement (ADR) prosthesis to treat degenerative cervical spine disease at 2 adjacent levels compared with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF).

METHODS

A prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter FDA-approved clinical trial was conducted at 30 US centers, comparing the low-profile titanium ceramic composite-based Prestige LP ADR (n = 209) at 2 levels with ACDF (n = 188). Clinical and radiographic evaluations were completed preoperatively, intraoperatively, and at regular postoperative intervals to 84 months. The primary end point was overall success, a composite variable that included key safety and efficacy considerations.

RESULTS

At 84 months, the Prestige LP ADR demonstrated statistical superiority over fusion for overall success (observed rate 78.6% vs 62.7%; posterior probability of superiority [PPS] = 99.8%), Neck Disability Index success (87.0% vs 75.6%; PPS = 99.3%), and neurological success (91.6% vs 82.1%; PPS = 99.0%). All other study effectiveness measures were at least noninferior for ADR compared with ACDF. There was no statistically significant difference in the overall rate of implant-related or implant/surgical procedure–related adverse events up to 84 months (26.6% and 27.7%, respectively). However, the Prestige LP group had fewer serious (Grade 3 or 4) implant- or implant/surgical procedure–related adverse events (3.2% vs 7.2%, log hazard ratio [LHR] and 95% Bayesian credible interval [95% BCI] −1.19 [−2.29 to −0.15]). Patients in the Prestige LP group also underwent statistically significantly fewer second surgical procedures at the index levels (4.2%) than the fusion group (14.7%) (LHR −1.29 [95% BCI −2.12 to −0.46]). Angular range of motion at superior- and inferior-treated levels on average was maintained in the Prestige LP ADR group to 84 months.

CONCLUSIONS

The low-profile artificial cervical disc in this study, Prestige LP, implanted at 2 adjacent levels, maintains improved clinical outcomes and segmental motion 84 months after surgery and is a safe and effective alternative to fusion.

Clinical trial registration no.: NCT00637156 (clinicaltrials.gov)

Restricted access

Matthew F. Gornet, Todd H. Lanman, J. Kenneth Burkus, Randall F. Dryer, Jeffrey R. McConnell, Scott D. Hodges and Francine W. Schranck

OBJECTIVE

The authors assessed the 10-year clinical safety and effectiveness of cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) to treat degenerative cervical spine disease at 2 adjacent levels compared to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF).

METHODS

A prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter FDA-approved clinical trial was conducted comparing the low-profile titanium ceramic composite–based Prestige LP Cervical Disc (n = 209) at two levels with ACDF (n = 188). Ten-year follow-up data from a postapproval study were available on 148 CDA and 118 ACDF patients and are reported here. Clinical and radiographic evaluations were completed preoperatively, intraoperatively, and at regular postoperative follow-up intervals for up to 10 years. The primary endpoint was overall success, a composite variable that included key safety and efficacy considerations. Ten-year follow-up rates were 86.0% for CDA and 84.9% for ACDF.

RESULTS

From 2 to 10 years, CDA demonstrated statistical superiority over ACDF for overall success, with rates at 10 years of 80.4% versus 62.2%, respectively (posterior probability of superiority [PPS] = 99.9%). Neck Disability Index (NDI) success was also superior, with rates at 10 years of 88.4% versus 76.5% (PPS = 99.5%), as was neurological success (92.6% vs 86.1%; PPS = 95.6%). Improvements from preoperative results in NDI and neck pain scores were consistently statistically superior for CDA compared to ACDF. All other study effectiveness measures were at least noninferior for CDA compared to ACDF through the 10-year follow-up period, including disc height. Mean angular ranges of motion at treated levels were maintained in the CDA group for up to 10 years. The rates of grade IV heterotopic ossification (HO) at the superior and inferior levels were 8.2% and 10.3%, respectively. The rate of severe HO (grade III or IV) did not increase significantly from 7 years (42.4%) to 10 years (39.0%). The CDA group had fewer serious (grade 3–4) implant-related or implant/surgical procedure–related adverse events (3.8% vs 8.1%; posterior mean 95% Bayesian credible interval [BCI] of the log hazard ratio [LHR] −0.92 [−1.88, −0.01]). The CDA group also had statistically fewer secondary surgical procedures at the index levels (4.7%) than the ACDF group (17.6%) (LHR [95% BCI] −1.39 [−2.15, −0.61]) as well as at adjacent levels (9.0% vs 17.9%).

CONCLUSIONS

The Prestige LP Cervical Disc, implanted at two adjacent levels, maintains improved clinical outcomes and segmental motion 10 years after surgery and is a safe and effective alternative to fusion.

Clinical trial registration no.: NCT00637156 (clinicaltrials.gov)

Restricted access

Matthew F. Gornet, J. Kenneth Burkus, Randall F. Dryer, John H. Peloza, Francine W. Schranck and Anne G. Copay

OBJECTIVE

Despite evidence of its safety and effectiveness, the use of lumbar disc arthroplasty has been slow to expand due in part to concerns about late complications and the risks of revision surgery associated with early devices. More recently, FDA approval of newer devices and improving reimbursements have reversed this trend in the United States. Additional long-term data on lumbar disc arthroplasty are still needed. This study reports the 5-year results of the FDA investigational device exemption clinical trial of the Medtronic Spinal and Biologics’ Maverick total disc replacement.

METHODS

Patients with single-level degenerative disc disease from L4 to S1 were randomized 2:1 at 31 investigational sites. In the period from April 2003 to August 2004, 405 patients received the investigational device and 172 patients underwent the control procedure of anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Outcome measures included the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), numeric rating scales (NRSs) for back and leg pain, the SF-36, disc height, interbody motion, heterotopic ossification (investigational device), adverse events (AEs), additional surgeries, and neurological status. Treatment was considered an overall success when all of the following criteria were met: 1) ODI score improvement ≥ 15 points over the preoperative score; 2) maintenance or improvement in neurological status compared with preoperatively; 3) disc height success, that is, no more than a 2-mm reduction in anterior or posterior height; 4) no serious AEs caused by the implant or by the implant and the surgical procedure; and 5) no additional surgery classified as a failure.

RESULTS

Compared to that in the control group, improvement in the investigational group was statistically greater according to the ODI and SF-36 Physical Component Summary (PCS) at 1, 2, and 5 years; the NRS for back pain at 1 and 2 years; and the NRS for leg pain at 1 year. The rates of heterotopic ossification increased over time: 1.0% (4/382) at 1 year, 2.6% (9/345) at 2 years, and 5.9% (11/187) at 5 years. Investigational patients had fewer device-related AEs and serious device-related AEs than the control patients at both 2 and 5 years postoperatively. Noninferiority of the composite measure overall success was demonstrated at all follow-up intervals; superiority was demonstrated at 1 and 2 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Lumbar disc arthroplasty is a safe and effective treatment for single-level lumbar degenerative disc disease, resulting in improved physical function and reduced pain up to 5 years after surgery.

Clinical trial registration no.: NCT00635843 (clinicaltrials.gov)

Free access

Matthew F. Gornet, Todd H. Lanman, J. Kenneth Burkus, Scott D. Hodges, Jeffrey R. McConnell, Randall F. Dryer, Anne G. Copay, Hui Nian and Frank E. Harrell Jr.

OBJECTIVE

The authors compared the efficacy and safety of arthroplasty using the Prestige LP cervical disc with those of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for the treatment of degenerative disc disease (DDD) at 2 adjacent levels.

METHODS

Patients from 30 investigational sites were randomized to 1 of 2 groups: investigational patients (209) underwent arthroplasty using a Prestige LP artificial disc, and control patients (188) underwent ACDF with a cortical ring allograft and anterior cervical plate. Patients were evaluated preoperatively, intraoperatively, and at 1.5, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively. Efficacy and safety outcomes were measured according to the Neck Disability Index (NDI), Numeric Rating Scales for neck and arm pain, 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36), gait abnormality, disc height, range of motion (investigational) or fusion (control), adverse events (AEs), additional surgeries, and neurological status. Treatment was considered an overall success when all 4 of the following criteria were met: 1) NDI score improvement of ≥ 15 points over the preoperative score, 2) maintenance or improvement in neurological status compared with preoperatively, 3) no serious AE caused by the implant or by the implant and surgical procedure, and 4) no additional surgery (supplemental fixation, revision, or nonelective implant removal). Independent statisticians performed Bayesian statistical analyses.

RESULTS

The 24-month rates of overall success were 81.4% for the investigational group and 69.4% for the control group. The posterior mean for overall success in the investigational group exceeded that in the control group by 0.112 (95% highest posterior density interval = 0.023 to 0.201) with a posterior probability of 1 for noninferiority and 0.993 for superiority, demonstrating the superiority of the investigational group for overall success. Noninferiority of the investigational group was demonstrated for all individual components of overall success and individual effectiveness end points, except for the SF-36 Mental Component Summary. The investigational group was superior to the control group for NDI success. The proportion of patients experiencing any AE was 93.3% (195/209) in the investigational group and 92.0% (173/188) in the control group, which were not statistically different. The rate of patients who reported any serious AE (Grade 3 or 4) was significantly higher in the control group (90 [47.9%] of 188) than in the investigational group (72 [34.4%] of 209) with a posterior probability of superiority of 0.996. Radiographic success was achieved in 51.0% (100/196) of the investigational patients (maintenance of motion without evidence of bridging bone) and 82.1% (119/145) of the control patients (fusion). At 24 months, heterotopic ossification was identified in 27.8% (55/198) of the superior levels and 36.4% (72/198) of the inferior levels of investigational patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Arthroplasty with the Prestige LP cervical disc is as effective and safe as ACDF for the treatment of cervical DDD at 2 contiguous levels and is an alternative treatment for intractable radiculopathy or myelopathy at 2 adjacent levels.

Clinical trial registration no.: NCT00637156 (clinicaltrials.gov)