Disparate trends of atherosclerotic plaque evolution in stroke patients under 18-month follow-up: a 3D whole-brain magnetic resonance vessel wall imaging study.

PURPOSE: The trend of atherosclerotic plaque feature evolution is unclear in stroke patients with and without recurrence. We aimed to use three-dimensional whole-brain magnetic resonance vessel wall imaging to quantify the morphological changes of causative lesions during medical therapy in patients with symptomatic intracranial atherosclerotic disease. METHODS: Patients with acute ischemic stroke attributed to intracranial atherosclerotic disease were retrospectively enrolled if they underwent both baseline and follow-up magnetic resonance vessel wall imaging. The morphological features of the causative plaque, including plaque volume, peak normalized wall index, maximum wall thickness, degree of stenosis, pre-contrast plaque-wall contrast ratio, and post-contrast plaque enhancement ratio, were quantified and compared between the non-recurrent and recurrent groups (defined as the recurrence of a vascular event within 18 months of stroke). RESULTS: Twenty-nine patients were included in the final analysis. No significant differences were found in plaque features in the baseline scan between the non-recurrent (n = 22) and recurrent groups (n = 7). The changes in maximum wall thickness (-13.32% vs. 8.93%, P = 0.026), plaque-wall contrast ratio (-0.82% vs. 3.42%, P = 0.005) and plaque enhancement ratio (-11.03% vs. 9.75%, P = 0.019) were significantly different between the non-recurrent and recurrent groups. Univariable logistic regression showed that the increase in plaque-wall contrast ratio (odds ratio 3.22, 95% confidence interval 1.55-9.98, P = 0.003) was related to stroke recurrence. CONCLUSION: Morphological changes of plaque features on magnetic resonance vessel wall imaging demonstrated distinct trends in symptomatic intracranial atherosclerotic disease patients with and without stroke recurrence.

The ROI-C zero-profile anchored spacer for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: biomechanical profile and clinical outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) has been the gold standard for treating cervical degenerative disc disease (cDDD). The use of anterior plates in ACDF poses an increased risk of complications such as screw or plate dislodgement, soft tissue injury, esophagus perforation, and dysphagia. The ROI-C™ implant system consists of a zero-profile interbody fusion cage with self-locking plates designed for stand-alone fusion without external plates or screws. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this report is to describe the ROI-C™ implant system with VerteBRIDGE™ anchor plates, including indications for use, surgical technique, preclinical testing, and clinical study results. The objectives of the clinical study were to assess fusion status, incidence of dysphagia and other device-related complications, and patient reported outcomes. METHODS: This was a retrospective, multicenter cohort study of 110 patients who underwent ACDF with ROI-C at seven study centers. Patient charts and radiographs were reviewed for any complications or device malfunction. The final follow-up was conducted prospectively and included collection of neck disability index, and visual analog scale (VAS) neck and arm pain scores. RESULTS: The mean operation time was 73 minutes, and mean blood loss was 25 mL (range 0-75 mL). Mean follow-up was 20.7 months (range 9.5-42.2). Dysphagia was reported in two patients (1.8%), and 99.1% of patients achieved fusion. One patient had radiographically confirmed pseudarthrosis at 12 months that was asymptomatic and did not require surgery. One patient had subsequent surgery owing to adjacent level degeneration. The mean neck disability index, VAS neck pain, and VAS right and left arm pain scores at final follow-up were 19, 26.5, 12.5, and 15.3, respectively. CONCLUSION: The ROI-C interbody cage with VerteBRIDGE anchor plates achieved a high rate of fusion, with a low incidence of dysphagia. These patients had similar or better outcomes compared to ACDF with anterior plating reported in peer-reviewed literature.

Long-term Evaluation of Cervical Disc Arthroplasty with the Mobi-C© Cervical Disc: A Randomized, Prospective, Multicenter Clinical Trial with Seven-Year Follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Cervical total disc replacement (TDR) is an increasingly accepted procedure for the treatment of symptomatic cervical degenerative disc disease. Multiple Level I evidence clinical trials have established cervical TDR to be a safe and effective procedure in the short-term. The objective of this study is to provide a long-term assessment of TDR versus anterior discectomy and fusion for the treatment of one- and two-level disc disease. METHODS: This study was a continuation of a prospective, multicenter, randomized, US FDA IDE clinical trial comparing cervical TDR with the Mobi-C© Cervical Disc versus ACDF through 7 years follow-up. Inclusion criteria included a diagnosis of symptomatic cervical degenerative disc disease at one or two cervical levels. TDR patients were treated using a Mobi-C© artificial disc (Zimmer Biomet, Austin TX, USA). ACDF with allograft and anterior plate was used as a control treatment. Outcome measures were collected preoperatively and postoperatively at 6 weeks, at 3, 6, 12, 18 months, annually through 60 months, and at 84 months. Measured outcomes included Overall success, Neck Disability Index (NDI), VAS neck and arm pain, segmental range of motion (ROM), patient satisfaction, SF-12 MCS/PCS, major complications, and subsequent surgery rate. The primary endpoint was an FDA composite definition of success comprising clinical improvement and an absence of major complications and secondary surgery events. RESULTS: A total of 599 patients were enrolled and treated, with 164 treated with one-level TDR, 225 treated with two-level TDR, 81 treated with one-level ACDF, and 105 treated with two-level ACDF. At seven years, follow-up rates ranged from 73.5% to 84.4% (overall 80.2%).The overall success rates of two level TDR and ACDF patients were 60.8% and 34.2%, respectively (p<0.0001). The overall success rates of one level TDR and ACDF patients were 55.2% and 50%, respectively (p>0.05). Both the single and two level TDR and ACDF groups showed significant improvement from baseline NDI scores, VAS neck and arm pain scores, and SF-12 MCS/PCS scores (p<0.0001). In the single level cohort, there was an increased percentage of TDR patients who reported themselves as "very satisfied" (TDR 90.9% vs ACDF 77.8%; p= 0.028). There was a lower rate of adjacent level secondary surgery in the single level TDR patients (3.7%) versus the ACDF patients (13.6%; p = 0.007).In the two level TDR group, the NDI success rate was significantly greater in the TDR group (TDR: 79.0% vs. ACDF: 58.0%; p=0.001). There was significantly more improvement in NDI change score at 7 years in the TDR patients versus ACDF. The TDR group had a significantly higher rate of patients who were "very satisfied" with their treatment compared to the ACDF group (TDR: 85.9% vs. ACDF: 73.9%). The rate of subsequent surgery at the index level was significantly lower in the TDR group compared to the ACDF group (TDR: 4.4% vs. ACDF: 16.2%; p=0.001). The rate of adjacent level secondary surgery was significantly lower in the two level TDR (4.4%) patients compared to the ACDF (11.3%; p=0.03) patients. In both single and two level cohorts, the percentage of patients with worse NDI (2.5%-3.8% of two level surgeries and 1.2%-2.5% of single level surgeries) or worse neck pain (5%-6.8% of the two level surgeries and 1.3% - 3.8% of the single level surgeries) was strikingly low in both groups but trended lower in the TDR patients. CONCLUSIONS: At seven years, the composite success analysis demonstrated clinical superiority of two level TDR over ACDF and non-inferiority of single level TDR versus ACDF. There were lower rates of secondary surgery and higher adjacent level disc survivorship in both groups. Both surgeries were remarkably effective in alleviating pain relative to baseline and the rate of patients with worse disability or neck pain was surprisingly low. Overall, greater than 95% of patients (from both groups) who underwent TDR and 88% of patients who underwent ACDF were "very satisfied" at seven years. The differences in clinical effectiveness of TDR versus ACDF becomes more apparent as treatment increases from one to two levels, indicating a significant benefit for TDR over ACDF for two-level procedures. ETHICAL STANDARDS: The Mobi-C Clinical Trial (ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT00389597) was conducted at 24 sites in the US and was approved by the Institutional Review Board, Research Ethics Committee, or local equivalent of each participating site. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1.

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.

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 ).

Stand-alone interspinous spacer versus decompressive laminectomy for treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the two-year clinical outcomes of a prospective, randomized controlled trial of an FDA-approved interspinous spacer with the compilation of published findings from 19 studies of decompressive laminectomy for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. METHODS: Back and leg pain, Oswestry disability index (ODI), and Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ) values were compared between spacer- and laminectomy-treated patients preoperatively and at 12 and 24 months. RESULTS: Percentage improvements between baseline and 24 months uniformly favored patients treated with the spacer for back pain (65% vs. 52%), leg pain (70% vs. 62%), ODI (51% vs. 47%) and ZCQ symptom severity (37% vs. 29%) and physical function (36% vs. 32%). CONCLUSION: Both treatments provide effective and durable symptom relief of claudicant symptoms. This stand-alone interspinous spacer offers the patient a minimally invasive option with less surgical risk.

Comparison of Clinical Outcomes of 1- and 2-Level Total Disc Replacement: Four-Year Results From a Prospective, Randomized, Controlled, Multicenter IDE Clinical Trial.

STUDY DESIGN: A prospective, randomized, multicenter Food and Drug Administration Investigation Device Exemption study using total disc replacement as surgical treatment of degenerative disc disease at 1 or 2 contiguous levels of the cervical spine. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of total disc replacement at single or 2 contiguous levels through 48 months of follow-up. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Cervical total disc replacement has been shown to be a safe and effective alternative to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion at 24 months. Its motion-preserving capabilities may avoid accelerating adjacent segment pathology and thereby lower the rate of associated complications. METHODS: Patients were randomized in a 2:1 ratio (total disc replacement [TDR]: anterior cervical discectomy and fusion [ACDF]) at 24 sites. Ultimately, 164 patients received TDR at 1 level and 225 patients received TDR at 2 contiguous levels. An additional 24 patients (15 one-level, 9 two-level) were treated with TDR as training cases.Outcome measures included neck disability index, visual analogue scale neck and arm pain, Short Form 12-item Health Survey (SF-12) Mental Composite Score (MCS) and Physical Composite Score (PCS), range of motion, major complication rates, and secondary surgery rates. Patients received follow-up examinations at regular intervals through 4 years after surgery. RESULTS: Preoperative characteristics were statistically similar for the 1- and 2-level patient groups. Four-year follow-up rates were 83.1% (1-level) and 89.0% (2-level). There was no statistically significant difference between 1- and 2-level TDR groups for all clinical outcome measures. Both TDR groups experienced significant improvement at each follow-up when compared with preoperative scores. One case of migration was reported in the 2-level TDR group. CONCLUSION: A 4-year post hoc comparison of 1- and 2-level TDR patients concurrently enrolled in a 24-center, Food and Drug Administration Investigation Device Exemption clinical trial indicated no statistical differences between groups in clinical outcomes, overall complication rates, and subsequent surgery rates. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1.

Two-level total disc replacement with Mobi-C cervical artificial disc versus anterior discectomy and fusion: a prospective, randomized, controlled multicenter clinical trial with 4-year follow-up results.

OBJECT: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of 2-level total disc replacement (TDR) using a Mobi-C cervical artificial disc at 48 months' follow-up. METHODS: A prospective randomized, US FDA investigational device exemption pivotal trial of the Mobi-C cervical artificial disc was conducted at 24 centers in the U.S. Three hundred thirty patients with degenerative disc disease were randomized and treated with cervical total disc replacement (225 patients) or the control treatment, anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) (105 patients). Patients were followed up at regular intervals for 4 years after surgery. RESULTS: At 48 months, both groups demonstrated improvement in clinical outcome measures and a comparable safety profile. Data were available for 202 TDR patients and 89 ACDF patients in calculation of the primary endpoint. TDR patients had statistically significantly greater improvement than ACDF patients for the following outcome measures compared with baseline: Neck Disability Index scores, 12-Item Short Form Health Survey Physical Component Summary scores, patient satisfaction, and overall success. ACDF patients experienced higher subsequent surgery rates and displayed a higher rate of adjacent-segment degeneration as seen on radiographs. Overall, TDR patients maintained segmental range of motion through 48 months with no device failure. CONCLUSIONS: Four-year results from this study continue to support TDR as a safe, effective, and statistically superior alternative to ACDF for the treatment of degenerative disc disease at 2 contiguous cervical levels. Clinical trial registration no.: NCT00389597 ( clinicaltrials.gov ).

Improving outcome in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: impact of bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation and prehospital physician care.

Evidence for the impact of prehospital, physician-delivered advanced cardiac life support (ACLS) on survival from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest is conflicting. The prospective observational study by Yasunaga and co-workers demonstrates an improved survival at 1 month associated with prehospital physician-delivered ACLS over emergency life-saving technician-delivered ACLS. These effects are additive to the survival benefit seen with bystander-initiated cardiopulmonary resuscitation (BCPR) compared with no BCPR. The present commentary places these findings in the context of the existing literature and discusses some of the unresolved controversies.