Prospective, randomized, multicenter study of cervical arthroplasty: 269 patients from the Kineflex|C artificial disc investigational device exemption study with a minimum 2-year follow-up

Clinical article

Restricted access

Object

Cervical total disc replacement (CTDR) represents a relatively novel procedure intended to address some of the shortcomings associated with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) by preserving motion at the treated level. This prospective, randomized, multicenter study evaluates the safety and efficacy of a new metal-on-metal CTDR implant (Kineflex|C) by comparing it with ACDF in the treatment of single-level spondylosis with radiculopathy.

Methods

The study was a prospective, randomized US FDA Investigational Device Exemption (IDE) pivotal trial conducted at 21 centers across the US. The primary clinical outcome measures included the Neck Disability Index (NDI), visual analog scale (VAS) scores, and a composite measure of clinical success. Patients were randomized to CTDR using the Kineflex|C (SpinalMotion, Inc.) cervical artificial disc or ACDF using structural allograft and an anterior plate.

Results

A total of 269 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to either CTDR (136 patients) or to ACDF (133 patients). There were no significant differences between the CTDR and ACDF groups when comparing operative time, blood loss, length of hospital stay, or the reoperation rate at the index level. The overall success rate was significantly greater in the CTDR group (85%) compared with the ACDF group (71%) (p = 0.05). In both groups, the mean NDI scores improved significantly by 6 weeks after surgery and remained significantly improved throughout the 24-month follow-up (p < 0.0001). Similarly, the VAS pain scores improved significantly by 6 weeks and remained significantly improved through the 24-month follow-up (p < 0.0001). The range of motion (ROM) in the CTDR group decreased at 3 months but was significantly greater than the preoperative mean at 12- and 24-month follow-up. The ROM in the ACDF group was significantly reduced by 3 months and remained so throughout the follow-up. Adjacent-level degeneration was also evaluated in both groups from preoperatively to 2-year follow-up and was classified as none, mild, moderate, or severe. Preoperatively, there were no significant differences between groups when evaluating the different levels of adjacent-level degeneration. At the 2-year follow-up, there were significantly more patients in the ACDF group with severe adjacent-level radiographic changes (p < 0.0001). However, there were no significant differences between groups in adjacent-level reoperation rate (7.6% for the Kineflex|C group and 6.1% for the ACDF group).

Conclusions

Cervical total disc replacement allows for neural decompression and clinical results comparable to ACDF. Kineflex|C was associated with a significantly greater overall success rate than fusion while maintaining motion at the index level. Furthermore, there were significantly fewer Kineflex|C patients showing severe adjacent-level radiographic changes at the 2-year follow-up. These results from a prospective, randomized study support that Kineflex|C CTDR is a viable alternative to ACDF in select patients with cervical radiculopathy.

Abbreviations used in this paper: ACDF = anterior cervical discectomy and fusion; AP = anteroposterior; CTDR = cervical total disc replacement; IDE = investigational device exemption; NDI = neck disability index; ROM = range of motion; VAS = visual analog scale.

Article Information

Address correspondence to: Dom Coric, M.D., Carolina Neurosurgery & Spine, 225 Baldwin Avenue, Charlotte, North Carolina 28207. email: dom@cnsa.com.

Please include this information when citing this paper: published online June 24, 2011; DOI: 10.3171/2011.5.SPINE10769.

© AANS, except where prohibited by US copyright law.

Headings

Figures

  • View in gallery

    Kineflex|C artificial disc (SpinalMotion, Inc.). Reprinted with permission from SpinalMotion, Inc., 2011.

  • View in gallery

    Radiographs of the Kineflex|C device in AP (A), lateral (B), flexion (C), and extension (D) views.

  • View in gallery

    Bar graph showing the composite measure of overall clinical success rates.

  • View in gallery

    Bar graph showing the patient self-report disability scores (NDI).

  • View in gallery

    Bar graph showing greater than 20% improvement in NDI scores.

  • View in gallery

    Bar graph showing patient self-report pain scores (VAS).

  • View in gallery

    Bar graph showing ROM.

  • View in gallery

    Bar graph showing qualitative assessment of adjacent-level deterioration.

References

1

Adamson TE: Microendoscopic posterior cervical laminoforaminotomy for unilateral radiculopathy: results of a new technique in 100 cases. J Neurosurg 95:1 Suppl51572001

2

Aronson NFiltzer DLBagan M: Anterior cervical fusion by the Smith-Robinson approach. J Neurosurg 29:3964041968

3

Baba HFurusawa NImura SKawahara NTsuchiya HTomita K: Late radiographic findings after anterior cervical fusion for spondylotic myeloradiculopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 18:216721731993

4

Bailey RWBadgley CE: Stabilization of the cervical spine by anterior fusion. J Bone Joint Surg Am 42-A:5655941960

5

Bartels RHDonk R: Fusion around cervical disc prosthesis: case report. Neurosurgery 57:E1942005

6

Bertagnoli RYue JJPfeiffer FFenk-Mayer ALawrence JPKershaw T: Early results after ProDisc-C cervical disc replacement. J Neurosurg Spine 2:4034102005

7

Bohlman HHEmery SEGoodfellow DBJones PK: Robinson anterior cervical discectomy and arthrodesis for cervical radiculopathy. Long-term follow-up of one hundred and twenty-two patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am 75:129813071993

8

Burkus JKHaid RWTraynelis VCMummaneni PV: Long-term clinical and radiographic outcomes of cervical disc replacement with the Prestige disc: results from a prospective randomized controlled clinical trial. Clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 13:3083182010

9

Chang UKKim DHLee MCWillenberg RKim SHLim J: Changes in adjacent-level disc pressure and facet joint force after cervical arthroplasty compared with cervical discectomy and fusion. J Neurosurg Spine 7:33392007

10

Cloward RB: The anterior approach for removal of ruptured cervical disks. J Neurosurg 15:6026171958

11

Coric DAdamson TE: Minimally invasive cervical microendoscopic laminoforaminotomy. Neurosurg Focus 25:2E22008

12

Coric DCassis JCarew JDBoltes MO: Prospective study of cervical arthroplasty in 98 patients involved in 1 of 3 separate investigational device exemption studies from a single investigational site with a minimum 2-year follow-up. Clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 13:7157212010

13

Coric DFinger FBoltes P: Prospective randomized controlled study of the Bryan Cervical Disc: early clinical results from a single investigational site. J Neurosurg Spine 41:31352006

14

Cummins BHRobertson JTGill SS: Surgical experience with an implanted artificial cervical joint. J Neurosurg 88:9439481998

15

DiAngelo DJRoberston JTMetcalf NHMcVay BJDavis RC: Biomechanical testing of an artificial cervical joint and an anterior cervical plate. J Spinal Disord Tech 16:3143232003

16

Dmitriev AECunningham BWHu NSell GVigna FMcAfee PC: Adjacent level intradiscal pressure and segmental kinematics following a cervical total disc arthroplasty: an in vitro human cadaveric model. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30:116511722005

17

Eck JCHumphreys SCLim THJeong STKim JGHodges SD: Biomechanical study on the effect of cervical spine fusion on adjacent-level intradiscal pressure and segmental motion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 27:243124342002

18

Emery SEBohlman HHBolesta MJJones PK: Anterior cervical decompression and arthrodesis for the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Two to seventeen-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 80:9419511998

19

Fountas KNKapsalaki EZNikolakakos LGSmisson HFJohnston KWGrigorian AA: Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion associated complications. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32:231023172007

20

Fraser JFHärtl R: Anterior approaches to fusion of the cervical spine: a metaanalysis of fusion rates. J Neurosurg Spine 6:2983032007

21

Garrido BJTaha TASasso RC: Clinical outcomes of Bryan cervical disc arthroplasty a prospective, randomized, controlled, single site trial with 48-month follow-up. J Spinal Disord Tech 23:3673712010

22

Goffin JCasey AKehr PLiebig KLind BLogroscino C: Preliminary clinical experience with the Bryan Cervical Disc prosthesis. Neurosurgery 51:8408472002

23

Goffin JGeusens EVantomme NQuintens EWaerzeggers YDepreitere B: Long-term follow-up after interbody fusion of the cervical spine. J Spinal Disord Tech 17:79852004

24

Goffin JVan Calenbergh Fvan Loon JCasey AKehr PLiebig KE: Intermediate follow-up after treatment of degenerative disc disease with the Bryan Cervical Disc Prosthesis: single-level and bi-level. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 28:267326782003

25

Gore DRSepic SB: Anterior cervical fusion for degenerated or protruded discs. A review of one hundred forty-six patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 9:6676711984

26

Heller JGSasso RCPapadopoulos SMAnderson PAFessler RGHacker RJ: Comparison of BRYAN cervical disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical decompression and fusion: clinical and radiographic results of a randomized, controlled, clinical trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34:1011072009

27

Hilibrand ASCarlson GDPalumbo MAJones PKBohlman HH: Radiculopathy and myelopathy at segments adjacent to the site of a previous anterior cervical arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 81:5195281999

28

Hunter LYBraunstein EMBailey RW: Radiographic changes following anterior cervical fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 5:3994011980

29

Ishihara HKanamori MKawaguchi YNakamura HKimura T: Adjacent segment disease after anterior cervical interbody fusion. Spine J 4:6246282004

30

Kim SWLimson MAKim SBArbatin JJChang KYPark MS: Comparison of radiographic changes after ACDF versus Bryan disc arthroplasty in single and bi-level cases. Eur Spine J 18:2182312009

31

Kulkarni VRajshekhar VRaghuram L: Accelerated spondylotic changes adjacent to the fused segment following central cervical corpectomy: magnetic resonance imaging study evidence. J Neurosurg 100:1 Suppl Spine262004

32

Matsunaga SKabayama SYamamoto TYone KSakou TNakanishi K: Strain on intervertebral discs after anterior cervical decompression and fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 24:6706751999

33

Mummaneni PVBurkus JKHaid RWTraynelis VCZdeblick TA: Clinical and radiographic analysis of cervical disc arthroplasty compared with allograft fusion: a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Neurosurg Spine 6:1982092007

34

Mummaneni PVHaid RW: The future in the care of the cervical spine: interbody fusion and arthroplasty. J Neurosurg Spine 1:1551592004

35

Murrey DJanssen MDelamarter RGoldstein JZigler JTay B: 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 9:2752862009

36

Park JBCho YSRiew KD: Development of adjacent-level ossification in patients with an anterior cervical plate. J Bone Joint Surg Am 87:5585632005

37

Parkinson JFSekhon LH: Cervical arthroplasty complicated by delayed spontaneous fusion. Case report. J Neurosurg Spine 2:3773802005

38

Pickett GESekhon LHSears WRDuggal N: Complications with cervical arthroplasty. J Neurosurg Spine 4:981052006

39

Pospiech JStolke DWilke HJClaes LE: Intradiscal pressure recordings in the cervical spine. Neurosurgery 44:3793851999

40

Puttlitz CMRousseau MAXu ZHu STay BKLotz JC: Intervertebral disc replacement maintains cervical spine kinetics. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 29:280928142004

41

Rabin DBertagnoli RWharton NPickett GEDuggal N: Sagittal balance influences range of motion: an in vivo study with the ProDisc-C. Spine J 9:1281332009

42

Reitman CAHipp JANguyen LEsses SI: Changes in segmental intervertebral motion adjacent to cervical arthrodesis: a prospective study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 29:E221E2262004

43

Robertson JTPapadopoulos SMTraynelis VC: Assessment of adjacent-segment disease in patients treated with cervical fusion or arthroplasty: a prospective 2-year study. J Neurosurg Spine 3:4174232005

44

Sekhon LH: Cervical arthroplasty in the management of spondylotic myelopathy. J Spinal Disord Tech 16:3073132003

45

Sekhon LHSears WDuggal N: Cervical arthroplasty after previous surgery: results of treating 24 discs in 15 patients. J Neurosurg Spine 3:3353412005

46

Smith GWRobinson RA: The treatment of certain cervical-spine disorders by anterior removal of the intervertebral disc and interbody fusion. J Bone Joint Surg Am 40-A:6076241958

47

Walraevens JLiu BMeersschaert JDemaerel PDelye HDepreitere B: Qualitative and quantitative assessment of degeneration of cervical intervertebral discs and facet joints. Eur Spine J 18:3583692009. (Erratum in Eur Spine J 18: 370 2009)

48

Wang JCMcDonough PWEndow KKanim LEDelamarter RB: The effect of cervical plating on single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. J Spinal Disord 12:4674711999

49

Weinhoffer SLGuyer RDHerbert MGriffith SL: Intradiscal pressure measurements above an instrumented fusion. A cadaveric study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 20:5265311995

50

Wigfield CGill SNelson RLangdon IMetcalf NRobertson JT: Influence of an artificial cervical joint compared with fusion on adjacent-level motion in the treatment of degenerative cervical disc disease. J Neurosurg 96:1 Suppl17212002

51

Wigfield CCSkrzypiec DJackowski AAdams MA: Internal stress distribution in cervical intervertebral discs: the influence of an artificial cervical joint and simulated anterior interbody fusion. J Spinal Disord Tech 16:4414492003

52

Yue WMBrodner WHighland TR: Long-term results after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with allograft and plating: a 5- to 11-year radiologic and clinical follow-up study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30:213821442005

TrendMD

Metrics

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 99 99 47
Full Text Views 103 103 24
PDF Downloads 149 149 23
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0

PubMed

Google Scholar