Prospective, multicenter study of 2-level cervical arthroplasty with a PEEK-on-ceramic artificial disc

View More View Less
  • 1 Carolina Neurosurgery and Spine Associates, Charlotte, North Carolina;
  • | 2 Atrium Musculoskeletal Institute, Charlotte, North Carolina;
  • | 3 Center for Disc Replacement at Texas Back Institute, Plano, Texas;
  • | 4 Cedars-Sinai, Los Angeles, California;
  • | 5 Spine Institute of Louisiana, Shreveport, Louisiana;
  • | 6 Orthopaedic Institute of Western Kentucky, Paducah, Kentucky;
  • | 7 Steadman-Hawkins Clinic, Vail, Colorado; and
  • | 8 Texas Back Institute Research Foundation, Plano, Texas
Restricted access

Purchase Now

USD  $45.00

Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $376.00

JNS + Pediatrics + Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $612.00
Print or Print + Online Sign in

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a PEEK-on-ceramic cervical total disc replacement (cTDR) device for the treatment of 2-level cervical disc disease with radiculopathy and/or myelopathy.

METHODS

The study was a prospective, nonrandomized, historically controlled FDA investigational device exemption trial evaluating the Simplify Cervical Artificial Disc for use at 2 levels. The anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) control group was derived from a propensity score–matched (using subclassification) cohort of patients who participated in an earlier prospective trial in which similar indications were used. The follow-up duration was 24 months. The primary outcome was a 4-point composite success classification. Other validated clinical and radiographic assessments were also evaluated.

RESULTS

The investigational group (n = 182) was compared with patients who underwent ACDF (n = 170) in a historical control group using propensity score analysis. The overall composite success rate was statistically significantly greater in the cTDR group compared with the ACDF group (86.7% vs 77.1%; p < 0.05). The mean Neck Disability Index scores improved significantly in both groups, with cTDR significantly lower at some follow-up points. At the 24-month follow-up, a minimum 15-point improvement in Neck Disability Index scores was achieved in 92.9% of the cTDR group and 83.5% of the ACDF group (p > 0.05). In both groups, neck and arm pain scores improved significantly (p < 0.05) by 6 weeks and improvement was maintained throughout follow-up. Segmental range of motion was maintained at both treated segments in the cTDR group. MRI performed in the cTDR group at 24 months postoperatively found minimal changes in facet joint degeneration. The rate of subsequent surgical intervention was 2.2% in the cTDR group and 8.8% in the ACDF group.

CONCLUSIONS

This study adds to the growing body of literature supporting cTDR for 2-level cervical disc disease with radiculopathy or myelopathy. cTDR showed a superior overall success rate compared to ACDF, while maintaining motion. These results support that the Simplify disc is a viable alternative to ACDF in appropriately selected patients with 2-level cervical spondylosis.

ABBREVIATIONS

ACDF = anterior cervical discectomy and fusion; AE = adverse event; bHO = bridging HO; cTDR = cervical TDR; HO = heterotopic ossification; IDE = investigational device exemption; NDI = Neck Disability Index; PS = propensity score; ROM = range of motion; SSI = secondary surgical intervention; TDR = total disc replacement.

Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $376.00

JNS + Pediatrics + Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $612.00
  • 1

    Mummaneni PV, Burkus JK, Haid RW, Traynelis VC, Zdeblick TA. Clinical and radiographic analysis of cervical disc arthroplasty compared with allograft fusion: a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Neurosurg Spine. 2007;6(3):198209.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2

    Fiani B, Nanney JM, Villait A, Sekhon M, Doan T. Investigational research: timeline, trials, and future directions of spinal disc arthroplasty. Cureus. 2021;13(7):e16739.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3

    Coric D, Guyer RD, Nunley PD, et al. Prospective, randomized multicenter study of cervical arthroplasty versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: 5-year results with a metal-on-metal artificial disc. J Neurosurg Spine. 2018;28(3):252261.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4

    Cummins BH, Robertson JT, Gill SS. Surgical experience with an implanted artificial cervical joint. J Neurosurg. 1998;88(6):943948.

  • 5

    Lauryssen C, Coric D, Dimmig T, Musante D, Ohnmeiss DD, Stubbs HA. Cervical total disc replacement using a novel compressible prosthesis: results from a prospective Food and Drug Administration–regulated feasibility study with 24-month follow-up. Int J Spine Surg. 2012;6:7177.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6

    Parish JM, Coric D. Cervical arthroplasty: long-term outcomes of FDA IDE trials. Global Spine J. 2020;10(2 Suppl):61S64S.

  • 7

    Chang UK, Kim DH, Lee MC, Willenberg R, Kim SH, Lim J. Changes in adjacent-level disc pressure and facet joint force after cervical arthroplasty compared with cervical discectomy and fusion. J Neurosurg Spine. 2007;7(1):3339.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8

    Eck JC, Humphreys SC, Lim TH, et al. Biomechanical study on the effect of cervical spine fusion on adjacent-level intradiscal pressure and segmental motion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2002;27(22):24312434.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9

    Hilibrand AS, Carlson GD, Palumbo MA, Jones PK, Bohlman HH. Radiculopathy and myelopathy at segments adjacent to the site of a previous anterior cervical arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1999;81(4):519528.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10

    Ishihara H, Kanamori M, Kawaguchi Y, Nakamura H, Kimura T. Adjacent segment disease after anterior cervical interbody fusion. Spine J. 2004;4(6):624628.

  • 11

    Matsunaga S, Kabayama S, Yamamoto T, Yone K, Sakou T, Nakanishi K. Strain on intervertebral discs after anterior cervical decompression and fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1999;24(7):670675.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12

    Reitman CA, Hipp JA, Nguyen L, Esses SI. Changes in segmental intervertebral motion adjacent to cervical arthrodesis: a prospective study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004;29(11):E221E226.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13

    Weinhoffer SL, Guyer RD, Herbert M, Griffith SL. Intradiscal pressure measurements above an instrumented fusion. A cadaveric study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1995;20(5):526531.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14

    DiAngelo DJ, Roberston JT, Metcalf NH, McVay BJ, Davis RC. Biomechanical testing of an artificial cervical joint and an anterior cervical plate. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2003;16(4):314323.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15

    Dmitriev AE, Cunningham BW, Hu N, Sell G, Vigna F, McAfee PC. Adjacent level intradiscal pressure and segmental kinematics following a cervical total disc arthroplasty: an in vitro human cadaveric model. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005;30(10):11651172.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16

    Gao Y, Liu M, Li T, Huang F, Tang T, Xiang Z. A meta-analysis comparing the results of cervical disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for the treatment of symptomatic cervical disc disease. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95(6):555561.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17

    Kim SW, Limson MA, Kim SB, et al. Comparison of radiographic changes after ACDF versus Bryan disc arthroplasty in single and bi-level cases. Eur Spine J. 2009;18(2):218231.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18

    Park DK, Lin EL, Phillips FM. Index and adjacent level kinematics after cervical disc replacement and anterior fusion: in vivo quantitative radiographic analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011;36(9):721730.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19

    Puttlitz CM, Rousseau MA, Xu Z, Hu S, Tay BK, Lotz JC. Intervertebral disc replacement maintains cervical spine kinetics. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004;29(24):28092814.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20

    Upadhyaya CD, Wu JC, Trost G, et al. Analysis of the three United States Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption cervical arthroplasty trials. J Neurosurg Spine. 2012;16(3):216228.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21

    Wigfield CC, Skrzypiec D, Jackowski A, Adams MA. Internal stress distribution in cervical intervertebral discs: the influence of an artificial cervical joint and simulated anterior interbody fusion. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2003;16(5):441449.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22

    Gandhi AA, Grosland NM, Kallemeyn NA, Kode S, Fredericks DC, Smucker JD. Biomechanical analysis of the cervical spine following disc degeneration, disc fusion, and disc replacement: a finite element study. Int J Spine Surg. 2019;13(6):491500.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23

    Park J, Shin JJ, Lim J. Biomechanical analysis of disc pressure and facet contact force after simulated two-level cervical surgeries (fusion and arthroplasty) and hybrid surgery. World Neurosurg. 2014;82(6):13881393.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 24

    Burkus JK, Haid RW, Traynelis VC, Mummaneni PV. Long-term clinical and radiographic outcomes of cervical disc replacement with the Prestige disc: results from a prospective randomized controlled clinical trial. J Neurosurg Spine. 2010;13(3):308318.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 25

    Delamarter RB, Murrey D, Janssen ME, et al. 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. SAS J. 2010;4(4):122128.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 26

    Coric D, Nunley PD, Guyer RD, et al. 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. J Neurosurg Spine. 2011;15(4):348358.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 27

    Heller JG, Sasso RC, Papadopoulos SM, et al. 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). 2009;34(2):101107.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 28

    Synergy Disc Replacement Ltd. A multi-center, prospective, historically controlled pivotal trial comparing the safety and effectiveness of the Synergy Disc to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion in patients with one-level symptomatic cervical degenerative disc disease (DDD). Accessed February 17, 2022. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04469231

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 29

    McAfee PC, Cunningham BW, Devine J, Williams E, Yu-Yahiro J. Classification of heterotopic ossification (HO) in artificial disk replacement. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2003;16(4):384389.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 30

    Walraevens J, Liu B, Meersschaert J, et al. Qualitative and quantitative assessment of degeneration of cervical intervertebral discs and facet joints. Eur Spine J. 2009;18(3):358369.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 31

    Fujiwara A, Tamai K, Yamato M, et al. The relationship between facet joint osteoarthritis and disc degeneration of the lumbar spine: an MRI study. Eur Spine J. 1999;8(5):396401.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 32

    Weishaupt D, Zanetti M, Boos N, Hodler J. MR imaging and CT in osteoarthritis of the lumbar facet joints. Skeletal Radiol. 1999;28(4):215219.

  • 33

    Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika. 1983;70(1):4155.

  • 34

    Imbens GW, Rubin DB. Causal Inference for Statistics, Social, and Biomedical Sciences. Cambridge University Press;2015.

  • 35

    Rubin DB. Using propensity scores to help design observational studies: application to the tobacco litigation. Health Serv Outcomes Res Methodol. 2001;2:169188.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 36

    Maislin G, Rubin DB. Design of non-randomized medical device trials based on sub-classification using propensity score quintiles, topic contributed session on medical devices. Proc Joint Stat Meet 2010;21822196.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 37

    Yue LQ. Statistical and regulatory issues with the application of propensity score analysis to nonrandomized medical device clinical studies. J Biopharm Stat. 2007;17(1):113,1517, 1921, 2327.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 38

    Wang XF, Meng Y, Liu H, Wang BY, Hong Y. The impact of different artificial disc heights during total cervical disc replacement: an in vitro biomechanical study. J Orthop Surg Res. 2021;16(1):12.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 39

    Yuan W, Zhang H, Zhou X, Wu W, Zhu Y. The influence of artificial cervical disc prosthesis height on the cervical biomechanics: a finite element study. World Neurosurg. 2018;113:e490e498.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 40

    Phillips FM, Coric D, Sasso R, et al. Prospective, multicenter clinical trial comparing M6-C compressible six degrees of freedom cervical disc with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for the treatment of single-level degenerative cervical radiculopathy: 2-year results of an FDA investigational device exemption study. Spine J. 2021;21(2):239252.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 41

    Guyer RD, Coric D, Nunley PD, et al. Single-level cervical disc replacement using a PEEK-on-ceramic implant: results of a multicenter FDA IDE trial with 24-month follow-up. Int J Spine Surg. 2021;15(4):633644.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 42

    Nunley PD, Coric D, Frank KA, Stone MB. Cervical disc arthroplasty: current evidence and real-world application. Neurosurgery. 2018;83(6):10871106.

  • 43

    Bartels RH, Donk R. Fusion around cervical disc prosthesis: case report. Neurosurgery. 2005;57(1):E194.

  • 44

    Parish JM, Asher AM, Coric D. Complications and complication avoidance with cervical total disc replacement. Int J Spine Surg. 2020;14(s2):S50S56.

  • 45

    Coric D. Commentary: Risk factors for high-grade heterotopic ossification after total disc replacement: a single-center experience of 394 cases. Neurosurgery. 2021;89(6):E312E313.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 978 977 263
Full Text Views 84 84 21
PDF Downloads 119 119 32
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0