Clinical and radiographic analysis of an artificial cervical disc: 7-year follow-up from the Prestige prospective randomized controlled clinical trial

Clinical article

View More View Less
  • 1 Staff Physician, Spine Service, Wilderness Spine Services, Columbus;
  • | 3 Atlanta Brain and Spine Care, Atlanta, Georgia;
  • | 2 Department of Neurosurgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois; and
  • | 4 Department of Neurological Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, California
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

Object

The authors assess the long-term safety and efficacy of cervical disc replacement with the Prestige Cervical Disc in a prospective, randomized, multicenter trial at 7 years of follow-up.

Methods

At 31 investigational sites, 541 patients with single-level cervical disc disease with radiculopathy were randomized to 1 of 2 treatment groups: 276 investigational group patients underwent anterior cervical discectomy and arthroplasty with the Prestige disc, and 265 control group patients underwent anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Clinical outcomes included Neck Disability Index, the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey, and neck and arm pain scores. Radiographs were assessed for angle of motion and fusion. Clinical and radiographic outcomes were evaluated preoperatively, intraoperatively, and at 1.5, 3, 6, 12, 24, 36, 60, and 84 months.

Results

Of the 541 patients treated, 395 patients (73%; 212 investigational and 183 control patients) completed 7 years of clinical follow-up. Significant improvements achieved by 1.5 months in both groups were sustained at 7 years. In the investigational group, mean Neck Disability Index improvements from preoperative scores were 38.2 and 37.5 at 60 and 84 months, respectively. In the control group, the corresponding means were 33.8 and 31.9. The differences between the investigational and control groups at the 60-month and 84-month periods were significant (p = 0.014 and 0.002, respectively). The overall rates of maintenance or improvement in neurological status in the investigational group were significantly higher: 92.2% and 88.2% at 60 months and 84 months, respectively, compared with 85.7% and 79.7% in the control group (p = 0.017 and 0.011, respectively). At 84 months, the percentage of working patients in the investigational group was 73.9%, and in the control group, 73.1%. Postoperatively, the implant effectively maintained average angular motion of 6.67° at 60 months and 6.75° at 84 months. Cumulative rates for surgery at the index level were lower (p < 0.001) in the investigational group (11 [4.8%] of 276) when compared with the control group (29 [13.7%] of 265) (based on life-table method), and there were statistical differences between the investigational and control groups with specific regard to the rate of subsequent revision and supplemental fixation surgical procedures. Rates for additional surgical procedures that involved adjacent levels were lower in the investigational group than in the control group (11 [4.6%] of 276 vs 24 [11.9%] of 265, respectively).

Conclusions

Cervical disc arthroplasty has the potential for preserving motion at the operated level while providing biomechanical stability and global neck mobility and may result in a reduction in adjacent-segment degeneration. The Prestige Cervical Disc maintains improved clinical outcomes and segmental motion after implantation at 7-year follow-up. Clinical trial registration no. NCT00642876 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Abbreviations used in this paper:

FSU = functional spinal unit; IDE = investigational device exemption; NDI = Neck Disability Index; PCS = Physical Component Summary; RCT = randomized controlled trial; SF-36 = 36-Item Short Form Health Survey.

Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $376.00

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

USD  $612.00
  • 1

    Anderson PA, , Sasso RC, & Riew KD: Comparison of adverse events between the Bryan artificial cervical disc and anterior cervical arthrodesis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33:13051312, 2008

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2

    Bazaz R, , Lee MJ, & Yoo JU: Incidence of dysphagia after anterior cervical spine surgery: a prospective study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 27:24532458, 2002

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3

    Beaurain J, , Bernard P, , Dufour T, , Fuentes JM, , Hovorka I, & Huppert J, et al.: Intermediate clinical and radiological results of cervical TDR (Mobi-C) with up to 2 years of follow-up. Eur Spine J 18:841850, 2009

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4

    Burkus JK, , Haid RW, , Traynelis VC, & Mummaneni PV: Longterm 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 13:308318, 2010

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5

    Coric D, , Nunley PD, , Guyer RD, , Musante D, , Carmody CN, & Gordon CR, 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 15:348358, 2011

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6

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

  • 7

    Farrington CP, & Manning G: Test statistics and sample size formulae for comparative binomial trials with null hypothesis of non-zero risk difference or non-unity relative risk. Stat Med 9:14471454, 1990

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8

    Heller JG, , Sasso RC, , Papadopoulos SM, , Anderson PA, , Fessler RG, & Hacker RJ, 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) 34:101107, 2009

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9

    Kim SW, , Limson MA, , Kim SB, , Arbatin JJ, , Chang KY, & Park MS, et al.: Comparison of radiographic changes after ACDF versus Bryan disc arthroplasty in single and bi-level cases. Eur Spine J 18:218231, 2009

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10

    Kulkarni V, , Rajshekhar V, & Raghuram L: Accelerated spondylotic changes adjacent to the fused segment following central cervical corpectomy: magnetic resonance imaging study evidence. J Neurosurg 100:1 Suppl Spine 26, 2004

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11

    McAfee PC, , Cappuccino A, , Cunningham BW, , Devine JG, , Phillips FM, & Regan JJ, et al.: Lower incidence of dysphagia with cervical arthroplasty compared with ACDF in a prospective randomized clinical trial. J Spinal Disord Tech 23:18, 2010

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12

    McAfee PC, , Reah C, , Gilder K, , Eisermann L, & Cunningham B: A meta-analysis of comparative outcomes following cervical arthroplasty or anterior cervical fusion: results from 4 prospective multicenter randomized clinical trials and up to 1226 patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 37:943952, 2012

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13

    Mehren C, , Suchomel P, , Grochulla F, , Barsa P, , Sourkova P, & Hradil J, et al.: Heterotopic ossification in total cervical artificial disc replacement. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31:28022806, 2006

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14

    Mendoza-Lattes S, , Clifford K, , Bartelt R, , Stewart J, , Clark CR, & Boezaart AP: Dysphagia following anterior cervical arthrodesis is associated with continuous, strong retraction of the esophagus. J Bone Joint Surg Am 90:256263, 2008

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15

    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 6:198209, 2007

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16

    Murrey D, , Janssen M, , Delamarter R, , Goldstein J, , Zigler J, & Tay B, et al.: 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 9:275286, 2009

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17

    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) 36:721730, 2011

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18

    Park JH, , Rhim SC, & Roh SW: Mid-term follow-up of clinical and radiologic outcomes in cervical total disk replacement (Mobi-C): incidence of heterotopic ossification and risk factors. J Spinal Disord Tech 26:141145, 2013

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19

    Porchet F, & Metcalf NH: Clinical outcomes with the Prestige II cervical disc: preliminary results from a prospective randomized clinical trial. Neurosurg Focus 17:3 E6, 2004

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20

    Robertson JT, & Metcalf NH: Long-term outcome after implantation of the Prestige I disc in an end-stage indication: 4-year results from a pilot study. Neurosurg Focus 17:3 E10, 2004

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21

    Sasso RC, , Anderson PA, , Riew KD, & Heller JG: Results of cervical arthroplasty compared with anterior discectomy and fusion: four-year clinical outcomes in a prospective, randomized controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am 93:16841692, 2011

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22

    Steinmetz MP, , Patel R, , Traynelis V, , Resnick DK, & Anderson PA: Cervical disc arthroplasty compared with fusion in a workers' compensation population. Neurosurgery 63:741747, 2008

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23

    Upadhyaya CD, , Wu JC, , Trost G, , Haid RW, , Traynelis VC, & Tay B, et al.: Analysis of the three United States Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption cervical arthroplasty trials. Clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 16:216228, 2012

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 24

    Wigfield C, , Gill S, , Nelson R, , Langdon I, , Metcalf N, & Robertson J: 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 Suppl 1721, 2002

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 25

    Wigfield CC, , Gill SS, , Nelson RJ, , Metcalf NH, & Robertson JT: The new Frenchay artificial cervical joint: results from a two-year pilot study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 27:24462452, 2002

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 26

    Yi S, , Kim KN, , Yang MS, , Yang JW, , Kim H, & Ha Y, et al.: Difference in occurrence of heterotopic ossification according to prosthesis type in the cervical artificial disc replacement. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35:15561561, 2010

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 27

    Zigler JE, , Delamarter R, , Murrey D, , Spivak J, & Janssen M: Pro-Disc-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. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 38:203209, 2013

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 871 418 39
Full Text Views 1367 74 11
PDF Downloads 500 67 11
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0