Effect of Arthroplasty vs Fusion for Patients With Cervical Radiculopathy: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Surgical treatment for cervical radiculopathy is increasing. Treatment with motion preserving anterior cervical disc arthroplasty was introduced to prevent symptomatic adjacent segment disease, and there is need to evaluate results of this treatment compared with standard anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Objective: To investigate clinical outcomes at 5 years for arthroplasty vs fusion in patients who underwent surgical treatment for cervical radiculopathy. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter, single-blinded, randomized clinical trial included patients aged 25 to 60 years with C6 or C7 radiculopathy referred to study sites' outpatient clinics from 2008 to 2013. Data were analyzed from December 2019 to December 2020. Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned to arthroplasty or fusion. Patients were blinded to which treatment they received. The surgical team was blinded until nerve root decompression was completed. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was change in Neck Disability Index (NDI) score. Secondary outcomes were arm and neck pain, measured with numeric rating scales (NRS); quality of life, measured with the EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D); reoperation rates; and adjacent segment disease. Results: Among 147 eligible patients, 4 (2.7%) declined to participate and 7 (4.8%) were excluded. A total of 136 patients were randomized (mean [SD] age, 44.1 [7.0] years; 73 (53.7%) women), with 68 patients randomized to arthroplasty and 68 patients randomized to fusion. A total of 114 patients (83.8%) completed the 5-year follow-up. In the arthroplasty group, the mean NDI score was 45.9 (95% CI, 43.3 to 48.4) points at baseline and 22.2 (95% CI, 18.0 to 26.3) points at 5 years follow-up, and in the fusion group, mean NDI score was 51.3 (95% CI, 48.1 to 54.4) points at baseline, and 21.3 (95% CI, 17.0 to 25.6) points at 5 years follow-up. The changes in mean NDI scores between baseline and 5 years were statistically significant for arthroplasty (mean change, 24.8 [95% CI, 19.8 to 29.9] points; P < .001) and fusion (mean change, 29.9 [95% CI, 24.0 to 35.9] points; P < .001), but the change in mean NDI scores was not significantly different between groups (difference, 5.1 [95% CI, -2.6 to 12.7] points; P = .19). There were no significant differences in changes in arm pain (mean [SE] change, 3.5 [0.5] vs 3.1 [0.4]; P = .47), neck pain (mean [SE] change, 3.0 [0.5] vs 3.4 [0.5]; P = .50), EQ-5D (mean [SE] change, 0.39 [0.4] vs 0.45 [0.6]; P = .46), patients requiring reoperation (10 patients [14.7%] vs 8 patients [11.8%]; P = .61), and adjacent segment disease (0 patients vs 1 patient [1.5%]; P = .32) between the arthroplasty and fusion groups. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, patients treated with arthroplasty and fusion reported similar and substantial clinical improvement at 5 years. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00735176.

The Norwegian Cervical Arthroplasty Trial (NORCAT): 2-year clinical outcome after single-level cervical arthroplasty versus fusion-a prospective, single-blinded, randomized, controlled multicenter study.

PURPOSE: Standard surgical treatment for symptomatic cervical disc disease has been discectomy and fusion, but the use of arthroplasty, designed to preserve motion, has increased, and most studies report clinical outcome in its favor. Few of these trials, however, blinded the patients. We, therefore, conducted the Norwegian Cervical Arthroplasty Trial, and present 2-year clinical outcome after arthroplasty or fusion. METHODS: This multicenter trial included 136 patients with single-level cervical disc disease. The patients were randomized to arthroplasty or fusion, and blinded to the treatment modality. The surgical team was blinded to randomization until nerve root decompression was completed. Primary outcome was the self-rated Neck Disability Index. Secondary outcomes were the numeric rating scale for pain and quality of life questionnaires Short Form-36 and EuroQol-5Dimension-3 Level. RESULTS: There was a significant improvement in the primary and all secondary outcomes from baseline to 2-year follow-up for both arthroplasty and fusion (P < 0.001), and no observed significant between-group differences at any follow-up times. However, linear mixed model analyses, correcting for baseline values, dropouts and missing data, revealed a difference in Neck Disability Index (P = 0.049), and arm pain (P = 0.027) in favor of fusion at 2 years. The duration of surgery was longer (P < 0.001), and the frequency of reoperations higher (P = 0.029) with arthroplasty. CONCLUSION: The present study showed excellent clinical results and no significant difference between treatments at any scheduled follow-up. However, the rate of index level reoperations was higher and the duration of surgery longer with arthroplasty. TRIAL REGISTRATION: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT 00735176.19.

Heterotopic ossification and clinical outcome in nonconstrained cervical arthroplasty 2 years after surgery: the Norwegian Cervical Arthroplasty Trial (NORCAT).

PURPOSE: Heterotopic ossification is a phenomenon in cervical arthroplasty. Previous reports have mainly focused on various semiconstrained devices and only a few publications have focused on ossification around devices that are nonconstrained. The purpose of this study was to assess the occurrence of heterotopic ossification around a nonconstrained cervical device and how it affects clinical outcome 2 years after surgery. METHODS: Thirty-seven patients were included from a larger cohort of a randomized controlled trial (NORCAT) which compared single-level cervical arthroplasty with fusion. The occurrence of heterotopic ossification was assessed with a CT scan and two neuroradiologists determined its degree. For grading, we used the Mehren/Suchomel classification system (grade 0-4). The patients were divided by level of ossification, low grade (0-2) or high grade (3-4), and clinical outcomes were compared. Self-rated disability for neck and arm pain (Neck Disability Index), health-related quality of life (the Short Form-36 and EuroQol-5D), and pain (the Numeric Rating Scale 11) were used as clinical outcome measures. RESULTS: Heterotopic ossification was encountered in all patients 2 years after surgery. Complete fusion (grade 4) was found in 16 % of participants, and high-grade ossification (grade 3-4) occurred in 62 %. The remaining patients were classified as having low-grade ossification (grade 2). There were no differences in the clinical outcomes of patients with low- and high-grade ossification. CONCLUSION: High-grade heterotopic ossification and spontaneous fusion 2 years after surgery were seen in a significant number of patients. However, the degree of ossification did not influence the clinical outcome.

Relationship of "dose" of intracranial hypertension to outcome in severe traumatic brain injury.

OBJECT: It has recently been suggested that the degree of intracranial pressure (ICP) above the treatment goal can be estimated by the area under the curve (AUC) of ICP versus time in patients with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). The objective of this study was to determine whether the calculated "ICP dose"-the ICP AUC-is related to mortality rate, outcome, and Marshall CT classification. METHODS: Of 135 patients (age range 1-82 years) with severe TBI treated during a 5-year period at the authors' institution, 113 patients underwent ICP monitoring (84%). Ninety-three patients with a monitoring time>24 hours were included for analysis of ICP AUC calculated using the trapezoidal method. Computed tomography scans were assessed according to the Marshall TBI classification. Patients with Glasgow Outcome Scale scores at 6 months and >3 years were separated into 2 groups based on outcome. RESULTS: Sixty patients (65%) had ICP values>20 mm Hg, and 12 (13%) developed severe intracranial hypertension and died secondary to herniation. A multiple regression analysis adjusting for Glasgow Coma Scale score, age, pupillary abnormalities and Injury Severity Scale score demonstrated that the ICP AUC was a significant predictor of poor outcome at 6 months (p=0.034) and of death (p=0.035). However, it did not predict long-term outcome (p=0.157). The ICP AUC was significantly higher in patients with Marshall head injury Categories 3 and 4 (24 patients) than in those with Category 2 (23 patients, p=0.025) and Category 5 (46 patients, p=0.021) TBIs using the worst CT scan obtained. CONCLUSIONS: The authors found a significant relationship between the dose of ICP, the worst Marshall CT score, and patient outcome, suggesting that the AUC method may be useful in refining and improving the treatment of ICP in patients with TBI.