Subsequent surgery rates after cervical total disc replacement using a Mobi-C Cervical Disc Prosthesis versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a prospective randomized clinical trial with 5-year follow-up
Search for other papers by Robert J. Jackson in
jns
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Reginald J. Davis in
jns
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Gregory A. Hoffman in
jns
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Hyun W. Bae in
jns
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Michael S. Hisey in
jns
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Kee D. Kim in
jns
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Steven E. Gaede in
jns
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Pierce Dalton Nunley in
jns
Google Scholar
PubMed
OBJECTIVE
Cervical total disc replacement (TDR) has been shown in a number of prospective clinical studies to be a viable treatment alternative to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for the treatment of symptomatic degenerative disc disease. In addition to preserving motion, evidence suggests that cervical TDR may result in a lower incidence of subsequent surgical intervention than treatment with fusion. The goal of this study was to evaluate subsequent surgery rates up to 5 years in patients treated with TDR or ACDF at 1 or 2 contiguous levels between C-3 and C-7.
METHODS
This was a prospective, multicenter, randomized, unblinded clinical trial. Patients with symptomatic degenerative disc disease were enrolled to receive 1- or 2-level treatment with either TDR as the investigational device or ACDF as the control treatment. There were 260 patients in the 1-level study (179 TDR and 81 ACDF patients) and 339 patients in the 2-level study (234 TDR and 105 ACDF patients).
RESULTS
At 5 years, the occurrence of subsequent surgical intervention was significantly higher among ACDF patients for 1-level (TDR, 4.5% [8/179]; ACDF, 17.3% [14/81]; p = 0.0012) and 2-level (TDR, 7.3% [17/234]; ACDF, 21.0% [22/105], p = 0.0007) treatment. The TDR group demonstrated significantly fewer index- and adjacent-level subsequent surgeries in both the 1- and 2-level cohorts.
CONCLUSIONS
Five-year results showed treatment with cervical TDR to result in a significantly lower rate of subsequent surgical intervention than treatment with ACDF for both 1 and 2 levels of treatment.
Clinical trial registration no.: NCT00389597 (clinicaltrials.gov)
ABBREVIATIONS
ACDF = anterior cervical discectomy and fusion; IDE = Investigational Device Exemption; NDI = neck disability index; TDR = total disc replacement.
© Copyright 1944-2023 American Association of Neurological Surgeons