Are Collapsed Cervical Discs Amenable to Total Disc Arthroplasty?: Analysis of Prospective Clinical Data With 2-Year Follow Up.

STUDY DESIGN: Analysis of prospectively collected radiographic data. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the influence of preoperative index-level range of motion (ROM) and disc height on postoperative ROM after cervical total disc arthroplasty (TDA) using compressible disc prostheses. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Clinical studies demonstrate benefits of motion preservation over fusion; however, questions remain unanswered as to which preoperative factors have the ability to identify patients who are most likely to have good postoperative motion, which is the primary rationale for TDA. METHODS: We analyzed prospectively collected data from a single-arm, multicenter study with 2-year follow up of 30 patients with 48 implanted levels. All received compressible cervical disc prostheses of 6 mm-height (M6C, Spinal Kinetics, Sunnyvale, CA). The influence of index-level preoperative disc height and ROM (each with two levels: below-median and above-median) on postoperative ROM was analyzed using 2 x 2 ANOVA. We further analyzed the radiographic outcomes of a subset of discs with preoperative height less than 3 mm, the so-called "collapsed" discs. RESULTS: Shorter (3.0 ± 0.4 mm) discs were significantly less mobile preoperatively than taller (4.4 ± 0.5 mm) discs (6.7° vs. 10.5°, P = 0.01). The postoperative ROM did not differ between the shorter and taller discs (5.6° vs. 5.0°, P = 0.63). Tall discs that were less mobile preoperatively had significantly smaller postoperative ROM than short discs with above-median preoperative mobility (P < 0.05). The "collapsed discs" (n = 8) were less mobile preoperatively compared with all discs combined (5.1° vs. 8.6°, P < 0.01). These discs were distracted to more than two times the preoperative height, from 2.6 to 5.7 mm, and had significantly greater postoperative ROM than all discs combined (7.6° vs. 5.3°, P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: We observed a significant interaction between preoperative index-level disc height and ROM in influencing postoperative ROM. Although limited by small sample size, the results suggest discs with preoperative height less than 3 mm may be amenable to disc arthroplasty using compressible disc prostheses. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.

Five-Year Follow-Up of a Prospective, Randomized Trial Comparing Two Lumbar Total Disc Replacements.

STUDY DESIGN: This was a prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter study. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes of two lumbar total disc replacements (TDRs) at 5-year follow-up and report results of serum ion level analysis in a subgroup of patients receiving a metal-on-metal implant. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Lumbar TDR has been compared with fusion in several randomized studies, finding TDR noninferior to fusion and superior on some measures. Receiving less attention has been comparing TDR devices. Additionally, there is concern about metal-on-metal implants, with little data available for spine devices. METHODS: The study included 204 patients receiving Kineflex-L (investigational) and 190 receiving CHARITÉ (control). Outcome measure included Oswestry Disability Index, visual analog pain scales (VAS), patient satisfaction, neurological status, complications, reoperations, and a composite success score. Radiographic assessment included range of motion, subsidence, and heterotrophic ossification. In 32 investigational patients, serum ion analysis was performed for cobalt and chromium. These values were compared with Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency values to merit monitoring total hip replacement patients for potential wear problems. RESULTS: Mean Oswestry and VAS scores in both groups improved significantly by 6 weeks and remained improved during 5-year follow-up (Oswestry Disability Index, scores in both groups were approximately 60 preoperatively vs. 20 at 2- and 5-year follow-up; P < 0.01; VAS scores improved >50% by 6 weeks and remained significantly improved; P < 0.05). Approximately 11% of both groups underwent reoperation. Radiographic analysis found segmental range of motion decreased at 3 month, then increased through 24 months, and was maintained thereafter. Serum ion level analysis found the greatest mean value at any follow-up point was less than 20% of Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency recommended minimum value to merit monitoring hip replacement patients. CONCLUSION: This prospective, randomized study comparing two TDRs found no significant differences in outcomes during 5-year follow-up. Both provided statistically significant improvements by 6 weeks that were maintained. This results support other studies. Serum ion levels in TDR patients were well below the recommended threshold levels to merit monitoring.

Comparison of 2 lumbar total disc replacements: results of a prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter Food and Drug Administration trial with 24-month follow-up.

STUDY DESIGN: This was a prospective, randomized, controlled multicenter study with 24-month follow-up. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy in a Food and Drug Administration Investigation Device Exemption of a new lumbar total disc replacement (TDR) by comparing it to an earlier TDR approved for sale. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Randomized trials have reported TDR to produce results similar or superior to lumbar fusion. Results for various TDRs seem to be similar, but differences in study design and outcome measures pose challenges in definitively comparing devices. The purpose of this study was to perform a direct comparison of 2 lumbar TDRs in a prospective, randomized trial. METHODS: TDR was performed in 457 patients from 21 sites (261 patients in the investigational group (Kineflex-L Disc; metal-on-metal design anchored with keels, 204 randomized and 57 nonrandomized training cases), and 196 in the control group (CHARITE artificial disc; metal with polyethylene core with teeth for anchoring; 190 randomized and 6 nonrandomized training cases). All patients were treated nonoperatively for single-level symptomatic disc degeneration for at least 6 months prior to surgery. Perioperative data were collected. Clinical outcome data were collected prospectively, as approved by the Food and Drug Administration, through 24-month follow-up. Primary outcome measures used were the Oswestry Disability Index, visual analogue scales assessing pain, patient satisfaction, and reoperations. Success was defined to be at least 15-point improvements in Oswestry Disability Index scores, no reoperation, and no major adverse events. Radiographical measures included range of motion, disc space height, and assessment for device migration, subsidence, and fusion at the TDR level. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the groups when comparing operative time, blood loss, or length of hospital stay. Both groups improved significantly on Oswestry Disability Index and visual analogue scale scores (P < 0.01) with no differences between the groups. Success rates were similar (68.1% investigational vs. 67.4% control). At 24-month follow-up, 94.1% of the investigational group and 91.9% of controls were satisfied with outcome. Reoperation was performed in 10.3% of the investigational group and 8.4% of the control group. CONCLUSION: This prospective, randomized, controlled study comparing 2 TDRs, the first to the authors' knowledge, found the devices produced very similar clinical outcomes. Both groups improved significantly by 6 weeks postoperatively and remained improved throughout follow-up with a high patient satisfaction rate.

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.

BACKGROUND: Anterior cervical fusion, an established procedure to treat cervical radiculopathy, sacrifices the natural function of the disc, while placing increased stresses on adjacent spinal levels. In contrast, the cervical total disc replacement (cTDR) maintains motion and decreases adjacent-level stresses. The purpose of this study was to investigate the safety and effectiveness of a next-generation cTDR device in patients with symptomatic cervical radiculopathy. METHODS: This is a multicenter Food and Drug Administration-regulated feasibility study to evaluate safety and effectiveness of the M6-C Artificial Cervical Disc for the treatment of patients with symptomatic cervical radiculopathy at 1 or 2 levels from C3 to C7. Neck Disability Index (NDI), visual analog scales (VAS) assessing neck and arm pain, Short Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36), safety, and radiographic outcomes were assessed preoperatively, at 6 weeks and 3, 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively. RESULTS: Thirty patients were enrolled at 3 clinical sites. Patients were implanted at either 1 or 2 levels. Mean NDI improved from 67.8 to 20.8 (P < .0001) at 24 months. Significant improvement was also observed through 24-month follow-up in neck and arm pain VAS (P < .0001) and in physical (P < .005) and mental component scores of the SF-36 at 3, 6, and 12 months (P < .008). There were no serious adverse events related to the device or procedure as adjudicated by an independent clinical events committee. Radiographically, disc space height increased more than 50% with a correlative increase in the postoperative disc angle. Range of motion decreased slightly from baseline during early follow-up but increased slightly and were maintained throughout the follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS: The M6-C cervical artificial disc represents a new generation of cTDR design. Results of this study found the M6-C device to produce positive clinical and radiographic outcomes similar to other cTDRs, warranting further investigation.