Impact of Cervical Disc Arthroplasty vs Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion on Driving Disability: Post Hoc Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial With 10-Year Follow-Up.

BACKGROUND: Driving an automobile requires the ability to turn the neck laterally. Anecdotally, patients with multilevel fusions often complain about restricted turning motion. The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) on driving disability improvement at 10-year follow-up after a 2-level procedure. METHODS: In the original randomized controlled trial, patients with cervical radiculopathy or myelopathy at 2 levels underwent CDA or ACDF. The driving disability question from the Neck Disability Index was rated from 0 to 5 years preoperatively and up to 10 years postoperatively. Severity of driving disability was categorized into "none" (score 0), "mild" (1 or 2), and "severe" (3, 4, or 5). Score and severity were compared between groups. RESULTS: Out of 397 patients, 148 CDA and 118 ACDF patients had 10-year follow-up. Driving disability scores were not different between the groups preoperatively (CDA: 2.65; ACDF: 2.71, P = 0.699). Postoperatively, the scores in the CDA group were significantly lower than those in the ACDF group at 5 (0.60 vs 1.08, P ≤ 0.001) and 10 years (0.66 vs 1.07, P = 0.001). Mean score improvement in the CDA group was significantly greater than the ACDF group at 10-year follow-up (-1.94 vs -1.63, P = 0.003). The majority of patients reported severe driving disability (CDA: 56.9%, ACDF: 58.0%, P = 0.968) before surgery. After surgery, a greater proportion of patients in the CDA group had neck pain-free driving compared with the ACDF group at 5 (63.3% vs 41.8%, P < 0.001) and 10 years (61.8% vs 41.2%, P = 0.003). CONCLUSION: In patients with cervical radiculopathy/myelopathy and 2-level disease, CDA provided greater improvements in driving disability as compared with ACDF at 10-year follow-up. This is the first report of its kind. This finding may be attributable to preservation of motion associated with CDA. CLINICAL RELEVENCE: This study provides valuable information regarding the improvement of driving disability after both CDA and ACDF. It demonstrates that both procedures result in significant improvements, with CDA resulting in even better improvements than ACDF, up to 10 year follow-up.

Allogeneic mesenchymal precursor cells treatment for chronic low back pain associated with degenerative disc disease: a prospective randomized, placebo-controlled 36-month study of safety and efficacy.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT PURPOSE: Evaluate the safety and efficacy of a single intradiscal injection of STRO-3+ adult allogeneic mesenchymal precursor cells (MPCs) combined with hyaluronic acid (HA) in subjects with chronic low back pain (CLBP) associated with degenerative disc disease (DDD) through 36-month follow-up. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: A multicenter, randomized, controlled study conducted at 13 clinical sites (12 in the United States and 1 in Australia). SUBJECT SAMPLE: A total of 100 subjects with chronic low back pain associated with moderate DDD (modified Pfirrmann score of 3-6) at one level from L1 to S1 for at least 6 months and failing 3 months of conservative treatment, including physical therapy were randomized in a 3:3:2:2 ratio to receive 6 million MPCs with HA, 18 million MPCs with HA, HA vehicle control, or saline control (placebo) treatment. OUTCOME MEASURES: Subjects were clinically and radiographically evaluated at 1, 3, 6, 12, 24, and 36 months postinjection. Subject-reported outcomes including adverse events, LBP on a Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), SF-36 and Work Productivity and Activity Index were collected. METHODS: Clinical and radiographic measures were collected at each visit. All randomized subjects were included in the safety assessments and analyzed based on the treatment received. Safety assessments included assessments of AEs, physical and radiographic examinations and laboratory testing. Efficacy assessments evaluated changes in VAS, ODI, and modified Pfirrmann (MP) scores between all active and control groups, respectively. Assessments included least squares mean (Mean), LS mean change from baseline (Mean Change) and responder analyses in order to assess the clinical significance of observed changes from baseline. The population for efficacy assessments was adjusted for the confounding effects of post-treatment interventions (PTIs). This study was conducted under an FDA Investigational New Drug application sponsored and funded by Mesoblast. RESULTS: There were significant differences between the control and MPC groups for improvement in VAS and ODI. The PTI-corrected VAS and ODI Means and Mean Change analyses; the proportion of subjects with VAS ≥30% and ≥50% improvement from baseline; absolute VAS score ≤20; and ODI reduction ≥10 and ≥15 points from baseline showed MPC therapy superior to controls at various time points through 36 months. Additionally, the proportion of subjects achieving the minimally important change and clinically significant change composite endpoints for the MPC groups was also superior compared with controls at various time points from baseline to 36 months. There were no significant differences in change in MP score from baseline across the groups. There were also no statistically significant differences in change in modified MP score at the level above or below the level treated between study arms. Both the procedure and treatment were well tolerated and there were no clinical symptoms of immune reaction to allogeneic MPCs. There was a low rate of Treatment Emergent Adverse Events (TEAEs) and Serious Adverse Events, and the rates of these events in the MPC groups were not significantly different from the control groups. One TEAE of severe back pain was possibly related to study agent and one TEAE of implantation site infection was considered to be related to the study procedure. CONCLUSIONS: Results provide evidence that intradiscal injection of MPCs could be a safe, effective, durable, and minimally invasive therapy for subjects who have CLBP associated with moderate DDD.

The Effect of ACDF or Arthroplasty on Cervicogenic Headaches: A Post Hoc Analysis of a Prospective, Multicenter Study With 10-Year Follow-up.

STUDY DESIGN: This was a post hoc analysis of a prospective FDA-IDE study. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to determine the effectiveness of a 2-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) or cervical disk arthroplasty (CDA) at relieving headaches associated with cervical radiculopathy or myelopathy at 10 years postoperative. BACKGROUND: To our knowledge, there is no large, prospective study that has examined the efficacy of cervical spine surgery for relieving headaches associated with radiculopathy or myelopathy at 10 years postoperative. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a post hoc analysis of a prospective FDA-IDE study for the Prestige LP versus ACDF for radiculopathy or myelopathy due to 2 levels. Preoperatively and out to 10 years, their Neck Disability Index documented if they had headaches (0: no headaches; 1: infrequent slight; 2: infrequent moderate; 3: frequent moderate; 4: frequent severe; 5: nearly constant). RESULTS: Three hundred ninety-seven patients were randomized to CDA (209) or ACDF (188). Preoperatively 86% had headaches and 55.9% (52.2% of CDA, 60.1% of ACDFs) had frequent moderate, severe, or nearly constant headache (grades 3-5). By 6 weeks postoperative, 64.4% had headaches and only 12.5% had grades 3-5 headaches (9.3% of CDA and 16% of ACDFs). The benefit lasted to the 10-year follow-up such that 60.3% had any headaches and 16.8% had grades 3-5 headaches (10.9% CDA; 24.3% ACDF). CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that 86% of patients with radiculopathy or myelopathy complain of headaches preoperatively, with 55.9% having frequent or constant, moderate to severe headaches (grades 3-5). By 6 weeks postoperative, only 12.5% had grades 3-5 headaches. At 10-year follow-up, 16.8% had grades 3-5 headaches. Both arthroplasty and ACDF are often effective at alleviating headaches associated with radiculopathy or myelopathy.

Occurrence and clinical implications of heterotopic ossification after cervical disc arthroplasty with the Prestige LP Cervical Disc at 2 contiguous levels.

OBJECTIVE: The authors sought to assess the impact of heterotopic ossification (HO) on clinical outcomes and angular range of motion (ROM) after cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) performed with the Prestige LP Cervical Disc (Prestige LP disc) at 2 levels. METHODS: HO was assessed and graded from 0 to IV for increasing severity on lateral neutral radiographs at each visit in 209 patients who underwent implantation of Prestige LP discs at 2 cervical levels in a clinical trial with extended 10-year follow-up. ROM was compared by using HO grade, and clinical outcomes were compared between HO subgroups (grade 0-II vs III/IV) based on HO severity at 2 and 10 years after surgery. RESULTS: The grade III/IV HO incidence at either or both index levels was 24.2% (48/198) at 2 years and 39.0% (57/146) at 10 years. No statistical difference was found in overall success; neurological success; or Neck Disability Index (NDI), neck pain, arm pain, or SF-36 Physical Component Summary (PCS) scores between the HO subgroups (grade 0-II vs III/IV) at either 2 or 10 years. The cumulative rate of possible implant-related adverse events (AEs) was higher in patients having grade III/IV HO at 2 years (56.3%) and 10 years (47.8%) compared with those having grade 0-II HO at 2 years (24.4%) and 10 years (17.9%), specifically in 2 subcategories: spinal events and HOs reported by the investigators. No statistical difference was found between the HO subgroups in possible implant-related serious AEs or secondary surgeries at the index or adjacent levels. The average angular ROMs at index levels were lower in subjects with higher-grade HO at 2 and 10 years. The average ROMs at the superior level were 8.8°, 6.6°, 3.2°, and 0.3°, respectively, for the HO grade 0/I, II, III, and IV groups at 10 years, and 7.9°, 6.2°, 3.7°, and 0.6°, respectively, at the inferior level. CONCLUSIONS: Radiographically severe (grade III or IV) HO after CDA with the Prestige LP disc at 2 levels did not significantly affect efficacy or safety outcomes (severe AEs or secondary surgeries). However, severe HO, particularly grade IV HO, significantly limited ROM, as expected.

Asymptomatic ACDF Nonunions Underestimate the True Prevalence of Radiographic Pseudarthrosis.

STUDY DESIGN: Secondary analysis of subjects in the control anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) arm of Medtronic Investigational Device Exemption (IDE) trials for cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA). OBJECTIVES: To compare patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients with radiographic nonunion to patients with a solid fusion. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The true prevalence of nonunion after ACDF is unknown. Nonunion may be under-reported, as some patients are not symptomatic enough to justify radiographic evaluation. METHODS: Three hundred forty-five subjects enrolled in the control arm of IDE trials for CDA who had single-level ACDF with allograft and plate with 24 month data formed the study cohort. Using the 24-month postop evaluation, subjects were divided into those who had radiographic fusion and those who did not using strict study criteria. SF-36, NDI, Neck and Arm pain NRS scores were reported at 12, 24, 36, 60, and 84 months postop. For subjects who had secondary surgery failures, the last observations before the secondary surgery were carried forward to future visits for the analysis. RESULTS: Forty-four (13%) patients had radiographic nonunion and 301 (87%) were fused at 24 months postop. At 24 months, PROs were similar between the two groups. Seven patients in the Nonunion group (16%) and 10 (3%) in the Fused group had additional surgery at the index level prior to the 24 follow-up (P = 0.003). Over the 84-month follow-up a total of 9 patients in the Nonunion group (21%) and 22 (7%) in the Fused group had additional surgery at the index level (P = 0.009). CONCLUSION: While the radiographic nonunion rate at 24 months was 13%, PROs show that many of the radiographic nonunions were asymptomatic. Although the majority of patients with radiographic nonunion did not undergo additional surgery, the rate of secondary surgeries at the index level was significantly higher in the radiographic nonunion group. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.

Two-level cervical disc arthroplasty versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: 10-year outcomes of a prospective, randomized investigational device exemption clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: The authors assessed the 10-year clinical safety and effectiveness of cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) to treat degenerative cervical spine disease at 2 adjacent levels compared to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). METHODS: A prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter FDA-approved clinical trial was conducted comparing the low-profile titanium ceramic composite-based Prestige LP Cervical Disc (n = 209) at two levels with ACDF (n = 188). Ten-year follow-up data from a postapproval study were available on 148 CDA and 118 ACDF patients and are reported here. Clinical and radiographic evaluations were completed preoperatively, intraoperatively, and at regular postoperative follow-up intervals for up to 10 years. The primary endpoint was overall success, a composite variable that included key safety and efficacy considerations. Ten-year follow-up rates were 86.0% for CDA and 84.9% for ACDF. RESULTS: From 2 to 10 years, CDA demonstrated statistical superiority over ACDF for overall success, with rates at 10 years of 80.4% versus 62.2%, respectively (posterior probability of superiority [PPS] = 99.9%). Neck Disability Index (NDI) success was also superior, with rates at 10 years of 88.4% versus 76.5% (PPS = 99.5%), as was neurological success (92.6% vs 86.1%; PPS = 95.6%). Improvements from preoperative results in NDI and neck pain scores were consistently statistically superior for CDA compared to ACDF. All other study effectiveness measures were at least noninferior for CDA compared to ACDF through the 10-year follow-up period, including disc height. Mean angular ranges of motion at treated levels were maintained in the CDA group for up to 10 years. The rates of grade IV heterotopic ossification (HO) at the superior and inferior levels were 8.2% and 10.3%, respectively. The rate of severe HO (grade III or IV) did not increase significantly from 7 years (42.4%) to 10 years (39.0%). The CDA group had fewer serious (grade 3-4) implant-related or implant/surgical procedure-related adverse events (3.8% vs 8.1%; posterior mean 95% Bayesian credible interval [BCI] of the log hazard ratio [LHR] -0.92 [-1.88, -0.01]). The CDA group also had statistically fewer secondary surgical procedures at the index levels (4.7%) than the ACDF group (17.6%) (LHR [95% BCI] -1.39 [-2.15, -0.61]) as well as at adjacent levels (9.0% vs 17.9%). CONCLUSIONS: The Prestige LP Cervical Disc, implanted at two adjacent levels, maintains improved clinical outcomes and segmental motion 10 years after surgery and is a safe and effective alternative to fusion.Clinical trial registration no.: NCT00637156 (clinicaltrials.gov).

Lumbar disc arthroplasty versus anterior lumbar interbody fusion: 5-year outcomes for patients in the Maverick disc investigational device exemption study.

OBJECTIVE: Despite evidence of its safety and effectiveness, the use of lumbar disc arthroplasty has been slow to expand due in part to concerns about late complications and the risks of revision surgery associated with early devices. More recently, FDA approval of newer devices and improving reimbursements have reversed this trend in the United States. Additional long-term data on lumbar disc arthroplasty are still needed. This study reports the 5-year results of the FDA investigational device exemption clinical trial of the Medtronic Spinal and Biologics' Maverick total disc replacement. METHODS: Patients with single-level degenerative disc disease from L4 to S1 were randomized 2:1 at 31 investigational sites. In the period from April 2003 to August 2004, 405 patients received the investigational device and 172 patients underwent the control procedure of anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Outcome measures included the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), numeric rating scales (NRSs) for back and leg pain, the SF-36, disc height, interbody motion, heterotopic ossification (investigational device), adverse events (AEs), additional surgeries, and neurological status. Treatment was considered an overall success when all of the following criteria were met: 1) ODI score improvement ≥ 15 points over the preoperative score; 2) maintenance or improvement in neurological status compared with preoperatively; 3) disc height success, that is, no more than a 2-mm reduction in anterior or posterior height; 4) no serious AEs caused by the implant or by the implant and the surgical procedure; and 5) no additional surgery classified as a failure. RESULTS: Compared to that in the control group, improvement in the investigational group was statistically greater according to the ODI and SF-36 Physical Component Summary (PCS) at 1, 2, and 5 years; the NRS for back pain at 1 and 2 years; and the NRS for leg pain at 1 year. The rates of heterotopic ossification increased over time: 1.0% (4/382) at 1 year, 2.6% (9/345) at 2 years, and 5.9% (11/187) at 5 years. Investigational patients had fewer device-related AEs and serious device-related AEs than the control patients at both 2 and 5 years postoperatively. Noninferiority of the composite measure overall success was demonstrated at all follow-up intervals; superiority was demonstrated at 1 and 2 years. CONCLUSIONS: Lumbar disc arthroplasty is a safe and effective treatment for single-level lumbar degenerative disc disease, resulting in improved physical function and reduced pain up to 5 years after surgery.Clinical trial registration no.: NCT00635843 (clinicaltrials.gov).

One-Level Versus 2-Level Treatment With Cervical Disc Arthroplasty or Fusion: Outcomes Up to 7 Years.

BACKGROUND: Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) have been used to treat degenerative disc disease at single as well as multiple cervical levels. This study compares the safety and efficacy of 1-level versus 2-level CDA and ACDF. METHODS: In total, 545 and 397 patients with degenerative disc disease were studied in 1-level and 2-level Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved clinical trials, respectively: CDA (n = 280 and 209), ACDF (n = 265 and 188). Data from these studies were used to compare 1- versus 2-level procedures: the propensity score method was used to adjust for potential confounding effects, and adjusted mean outcome safety and efficacy scores at 2 and 7 years postsurgery were compared between 1-level and 2-level procedures within treatment type. RESULTS: One-level and 2-level procedures had similar rates of improvement in overall success and patient-reported outcomes scores for both CDA and ACDF. There were no statistical differences in rates of implant-related adverse events (AEs) or serious implant-related AEs between 1-level and 2-level CDA. The 7-year rate of implant-related AEs was higher for 2-level than 1-level ACDF (27.7% vs 18.9%, P ≤ .036), though the rates of serious implant-related AEs between ACDF groups did not differ significantly. Secondary surgery rates were not statistically different between 1-level and 2-level procedures (CDA or ACDF) at the index or adjacent levels at 2 or 7 years. Grade IV heterotopic ossification at 7 years was reported in 4.6% of 1-level CDA patients and 8.6%/7.3% at the superior/inferior levels, respectively, of 2-level CDA patients. CONCLUSIONS: One- and 2-level CDA appear equally safe and effective in the treatment of cervical degenerative disc disease. Two-level ACDF appears to be as effective as 1-level ACDF but with a higher rate of some AEs at long-term follow-up. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2. CLINICAL TRIALS: clinicaltrials.gov: NCT00667459, NCT00642876, and NCT00637156.

Treatment of Cervical Myelopathy: Long-term Outcomes of Arthroplasty for Myelopathy Versus Radiculopathy, And Arthroplasty Versus Arthrodesis for Myelopathy.

STUDY DESIGN: Analysis of 2- and 7-year outcomes from a clinical trial comparing 2-level cervical disk arthroplasty (CDA) to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) in 287 patients with radiculopathy alone, and 110 patients with myelopathy alone or myelopathy with radiculopathy. OBJECTIVE: To compare the long-term safety and effectiveness of CDA for myelopathy versus radiculopathy. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: CDA for myelopathy is safe and effective in short term. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed Neck Disability Index (NDI), neck/arm pain, SF-36, neurological status, adverse events (AEs), and secondary surgeries at index and adjacent levels. RESULTS: All groups improved significantly for NDI, neck/arm pain, and physical component summary (PCS) scores from preoperative to postoperative. CDA Myelopathy versus CDA Radiculopathy: 2- and 7-year improvements were not significantly different. The 7-year score improvements for CDA Myelopathy and CDA Radiculopathy were: NDI (37.8 vs. 35.8, P=0.352), neck pain (12.0 vs. 12.1, P=0.477), arm pain (11.6 vs. 9.6, P=0.480), and PCS (14.1 vs. 13.7, P=0.863). The 2 groups had similar proportions of patients who maintained or improved their neurological status (87.2% vs. 93.5%, P=0.218), similar rates of serious AEs (54.5% vs. 57.5%, P=0.291) and similar rates of secondary surgeries at index (3.7% vs. 4.4%, P=0.839) and adjacent levels (3.7% vs. 7.6%, P=0.367). CDA Myelopathy versus ACDF myelopathy: 2 and 7-year improvements were not significantly different. The 7-year CDA and ACDF score improvements were: NDI (37.8 vs. 31.1, P=0.147), neck pain (12.0 vs. 10.4, P=0.337), arm pain (11.6 vs. 11.4, P=0.791), and PCS (14.1 vs. 11.2, P=0.363). The 2 groups had statistically similar proportions who maintained or improved their neurological status (87.2% vs. 96.2%, P=0.409), statistically similar overall rates of secondary surgeries at the index levels (3.7% vs. 9.4%, P=0.374), and statistically similar rates of secondary surgeries at adjacent levels (3.7% vs. 15.4%, P=0.088). CDA group demonstrated lower rates of serious AEs than ACDF (54.5% vs. 65.9%, P=0.019). CONCLUSIONS: CDA for myelopathy is a safe and effective long-term treatment.

Long-term clinical and radiographic outcomes of the Prestige LP artificial cervical disc replacement at 2 levels: results from a prospective randomized controlled clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to assess long-term clinical safety and effectiveness in patients undergoing anterior cervical surgery using the Prestige LP artificial disc replacement (ADR) prosthesis to treat degenerative cervical spine disease at 2 adjacent levels compared with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). METHODS A prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter FDA-approved clinical trial was conducted at 30 US centers, comparing the low-profile titanium ceramic composite-based Prestige LP ADR (n = 209) at 2 levels with ACDF (n = 188). Clinical and radiographic evaluations were completed preoperatively, intraoperatively, and at regular postoperative intervals to 84 months. The primary end point was overall success, a composite variable that included key safety and efficacy considerations. RESULTS At 84 months, the Prestige LP ADR demonstrated statistical superiority over fusion for overall success (observed rate 78.6% vs 62.7%; posterior probability of superiority [PPS] = 99.8%), Neck Disability Index success (87.0% vs 75.6%; PPS = 99.3%), and neurological success (91.6% vs 82.1%; PPS = 99.0%). All other study effectiveness measures were at least noninferior for ADR compared with ACDF. There was no statistically significant difference in the overall rate of implant-related or implant/surgical procedure-related adverse events up to 84 months (26.6% and 27.7%, respectively). However, the Prestige LP group had fewer serious (Grade 3 or 4) implant- or implant/surgical procedure-related adverse events (3.2% vs 7.2%, log hazard ratio [LHR] and 95% Bayesian credible interval [95% BCI] -1.19 [-2.29 to -0.15]). Patients in the Prestige LP group also underwent statistically significantly fewer second surgical procedures at the index levels (4.2%) than the fusion group (14.7%) (LHR -1.29 [95% BCI -2.12 to -0.46]). Angular range of motion at superior- and inferior-treated levels on average was maintained in the Prestige LP ADR group to 84 months. CONCLUSIONS The low-profile artificial cervical disc in this study, Prestige LP, implanted at 2 adjacent levels, maintains improved clinical outcomes and segmental motion 84 months after surgery and is a safe and effective alternative to fusion. Clinical trial registration no.: NCT00637156 (clinicaltrials.gov).

Cervical disc arthroplasty with the Prestige LP disc versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, at 2 levels: results of a prospective, multicenter randomized controlled clinical trial at 24 months.

OBJECTIVE The authors compared the efficacy and safety of arthroplasty using the Prestige LP cervical disc with those of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for the treatment of degenerative disc disease (DDD) at 2 adjacent levels. METHODS Patients from 30 investigational sites were randomized to 1 of 2 groups: investigational patients (209) underwent arthroplasty using a Prestige LP artificial disc, and control patients (188) underwent ACDF with a cortical ring allograft and anterior cervical plate. Patients were evaluated preoperatively, intraoperatively, and at 1.5, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively. Efficacy and safety outcomes were measured according to the Neck Disability Index (NDI), Numeric Rating Scales for neck and arm pain, 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36), gait abnormality, disc height, range of motion (investigational) or fusion (control), adverse events (AEs), additional surgeries, and neurological status. Treatment was considered an overall success when all 4 of the following criteria were met: 1) NDI score improvement of ≥ 15 points over the preoperative score, 2) maintenance or improvement in neurological status compared with preoperatively, 3) no serious AE caused by the implant or by the implant and surgical procedure, and 4) no additional surgery (supplemental fixation, revision, or nonelective implant removal). Independent statisticians performed Bayesian statistical analyses. RESULTS The 24-month rates of overall success were 81.4% for the investigational group and 69.4% for the control group. The posterior mean for overall success in the investigational group exceeded that in the control group by 0.112 (95% highest posterior density interval = 0.023 to 0.201) with a posterior probability of 1 for noninferiority and 0.993 for superiority, demonstrating the superiority of the investigational group for overall success. Noninferiority of the investigational group was demonstrated for all individual components of overall success and individual effectiveness end points, except for the SF-36 Mental Component Summary. The investigational group was superior to the control group for NDI success. The proportion of patients experiencing any AE was 93.3% (195/209) in the investigational group and 92.0% (173/188) in the control group, which were not statistically different. The rate of patients who reported any serious AE (Grade 3 or 4) was significantly higher in the control group (90 [47.9%] of 188) than in the investigational group (72 [34.4%] of 209) with a posterior probability of superiority of 0.996. Radiographic success was achieved in 51.0% (100/196) of the investigational patients (maintenance of motion without evidence of bridging bone) and 82.1% (119/145) of the control patients (fusion). At 24 months, heterotopic ossification was identified in 27.8% (55/198) of the superior levels and 36.4% (72/198) of the inferior levels of investigational patients. CONCLUSIONS Arthroplasty with the Prestige LP cervical disc is as effective and safe as ACDF for the treatment of cervical DDD at 2 contiguous levels and is an alternative treatment for intractable radiculopathy or myelopathy at 2 adjacent levels. Clinical trial registration no.: NCT00637156 ( clinicaltrials.gov ).

Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Single-level Anterior Cervical Arthrodesis: A Prospective Trial Comparing Allograft to a Reduced Dose of rhBMP-2.

STUDY DESIGN: A prospective study with historical controls. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate and compare the safety and effectiveness of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2) with allograft for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) in patients with symptomatic single-level cervical degenerative disk disease. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: rhBMP-2 is an osteoinductive protein that has been shown to induce fusion when used as an implant with a suitable carrier in spine surgery. However, some previous studies have shown rhBMP-2 use to be associated with a higher complication rate. METHODS: Investigational patients (224) with single-level cervical degenerative disk disease underwent ACDF with rhBMP-2 at a dose of 0.6 or 1.05 mg and were compared with historical control patients (486) treated with allograft spacer and cervical plate. RESULTS: At 24 months, improvement was significantly greater in the investigational group (37.1 points) than in the control group for Neck Disability Index (P=0.002) and arm pain (P=0.031). The overall neurological success rate was higher in the investigational group (P<0.001). Neck pain and general health status (SF-36 PCS and MCS) were similar. Fusion rate in the investigational group was higher than in the control group (99.4% vs. 87.2%, P=0.002).Cumulative adverse event rates at 24 months were similar; however, higher rates of dysphagia (P=0.001), local swelling (P=0.024), oropharyngeal pain (P=0.013), neck pain (P=0.019), and foraminal stenosis (P=0.002) were observed in the investigational group. Heterotopic ossification was also higher in the investigational group. CONCLUSIONS: At doses of 0.6 or 1.05 mg in a PEEK interbody cage, rhBMP-2 was effective in inducing fusion and improving Neck Disability Index and arm pain in single-level ACDF patients; however, higher rates of certain adverse events were observed in the investigational group. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 2.

Heterotopic ossification following single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: results from the prospective, multicenter, historically controlled trial comparing allograft to an optimized dose of rhBMP-2.

OBJECTIVE Heterotopic ossification (HO) has been reported following total hip, knee, cervical, and lumbar arthroplasty, as well as following posterolateral lumbar fusion using recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2). Data regarding HO following anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) with rhBMP-2 are sparse. A subanalysis was done of the prospective, multicenter, investigational device exemption trial that compared rhBMP-2 on an absorbable collagen sponge (ACS) versus allograft in ACDF for patients with symptomatic single-level cervical degenerative disc disease. METHODS To assess differences in types of HO observed in the treatment groups and effects of HO on functional and efficacy outcomes, clinical outcomes from previous disc replacement studies were compared between patients who received rhBMP-2/ACS versus allograft. Rate, location, grade, and size of ossifications were assessed preoperatively and at 24 months, and correlated with clinical outcomes. RESULTS Heterotopic ossification was primarily anterior in both groups. Preoperatively in both groups, and including osteophytes in the target regions, HO rates were high at 40.9% and 36.9% for the rhBMP-2/ACS and allograft groups, respectively (p = 0.350). At 24 months, the rate of HO in the rhBMP-2/ACS group was higher than in the allograft group (78.6% vs 59.2%, respectively; p < 0.001). At 24 months, the rate of superior-anterior adjacent-level Park Grade 3 HO was 4.2% in both groups, whereas the rate of Park Grade 2 HO was 19.0% in the rhBMP-2/ACS group compared with 9.8% in the allograft group. At 24 months, the rate of inferior-anterior adjacent-level Park Grade 2/3 HO was 11.9% in the rhBMP-2/ACS group compared with 5.9% in the allograft group. At 24 months, HO rates at the target implant level were similar (p = 0.963). At 24 months, the mean length and anteroposterior diameter of HO were significantly greater in the rhBMP-2/ACS group compared with the allograft group (p = 0.033 and 0.012, respectively). Regarding clinical correlation, at 24 months in both groups, Park Grade 3 HO at superior adjacent-level disc spaces significantly reduced range of motion, more so in the rhBMP-2/ACS group. At 24 months, HO negatively affected Neck Disability Index scores (excluding neck/arm pain scores), neurological status, and overall success in patients in the rhBMP-2/ACS group, but not in patients in the allograft group. CONCLUSIONS Implantation of rhBMP-2/ACS at 1.5 mg/ml with polyetheretherketone spacer and titanium plate is effective in inducing fusion and improving pain and function in patients undergoing ACDF for symptomatic single-level cervical degenerative disc disease. At 24 months, the rate and dimensions (length and anteroposterior diameter) of HO were higher in the rhBMP-2/ACS group. At 24 months, range of motion was reduced, with Park Grade 3 HO in both treatment groups. The impact of Park Grades 2 and 3 HO on Neck Disability Index success, neurological status, and overall success was not consistent among the treatment groups. The study data may offer a deeper understanding of HO after ACDF and may pave the way for improved device designs. Clinical trial registration no.: IDE# G060021; data compared with pooled data from control arms of IDE# G010188/NCT00642876 and IDE# G000123/NCT00437190 ( www.clinicaltrials.gov ).

Allogeneic mesenchymal precursor cells (MPCs) combined with an osteoconductive scaffold to promote lumbar interbody spine fusion in an ovine model.

BACKGROUND: Advances in immunomagnetic cell sorting have enabled isolation and purification of pleuripotent stem cells from marrow aspirates and have expanded stem cell therapies to include allogeneic sources. PURPOSE: This study aimed to determine the safety and efficacy of allogeneic mesenchymal precursor cells (MPCs) combined with an osteoconductive scaffold in lumbar interbody spinal fusion using an ovine model. STUDY DESIGN: Thirty-two skeletally mature ewes underwent a single-level interbody fusion procedure using a Polyetheretherketone fusion cage supplemented with either iliac crest autograft (AG) or an osteconductive scaffold (Mastergraft Matrix, Medtronic, Memphis, TN, USA) with 2.5×10(6) MPCs, 6.25×10(6) MPCs, or 12.5×10(6) MPCs. METHODS: Plain radiographs and computed tomography scans were scored for bridging bone at multiple points during healing and at necropsy. The biomechanical competency of fusion was scored by manual palpation and quantified using functional radiographs at necropsy. Postnecropsy histopathology and histomorphometric analysis assessed the local response to MPC treatment and quantified the volume and connectivity of newly formed bridging bone. Safety was assessed by serum biochemistry, hematology, and organ histopathology. RESULTS: Mesenchymal precursor cell treatment caused no adverse systemic or local tissue responses. All analyses indicated MPCs combined with an osteoconductive scaffold achieved similar or better fusion success as AG treatment after 16 weeks, and increasing the MPC dose did not enhance fusion. Manual palpation of the fusion site indicated more than 75% of MPC-treated and 65% of AG-treated animals achieved rigid fusion, which was corroborated with functional radiography. Computed tomography fusion scores indicated all animals in the MPC- and AG-treatment groups were fused at 16 weeks, yet X-ray scores indicated only 67% of the AG-treated animals were fused. Histomorphometry analyses showed equivalent outcomes for fusion connectivity and bony fusion area for MPC- and AG-treated groups. Approximately 6% residual graft material remained in the MPC-treated fusion sites at 16 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: Adult allogeneic MPCs delivered using an osteoconductive scaffold were both safe and efficacious in this ovine spine interbody fusion model. These results support the use ofallogeneic MPCs as an alternative to AG for lumbar interbody spinal fusion procedures.

Retrograde ejaculation following single-level anterior lumbar surgery with or without recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 in 5 randomized controlled trials: clinical article.

OBJECT: The aim of this study was to determine the incidence and assess specific risk factors in the postoperative development of retrograde ejaculation (RE) in men treated for degenerative lumbar disc disease at the L4-5 or L5-S1 level with stand-alone anterior interbody implants with or without recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2). METHODS: Patients enrolled in 5 prospective, randomized, multicenter FDA-approved investigational device exemption studies were observed for a minimum of 2 years to assess the rate of RE. Five hundred eight men with symptomatic single-level lumbar degenerative disc disease with up to Grade 1 spondylolisthesis underwent anterior lumbar interbody surgery with stand-alone anterior implants at either L4-5 or L5-S1. All patient self-reported and physician-documented adverse events were recorded over the entire course of follow-up. In the investigational groups, 207 patients were treated with an open surgical procedure using dual paired constructs and rhBMP-2 on an absorbable collagen sponge. The control groups (n = 301) were treated with lumbar fusion cage implants and iliac crest autograft or a metal-on-metal disc arthroplasty device. Multivariate analyses of RE were performed to assess the influence of treatment (rhBMP-2), surgical approach, and treated level. Data were analyzed for each trial individually and for the data pooled from the 5 trials. RESULTS: Retrograde ejaculation occurred at the highest rates in the earliest clinical trial. Of the 146 men, 6 (4.1%) developed RE postoperatively. In subsequent studies, the rates of RE ranged from 0% to 2.1%. Combining the data from the 5 trials, RE was reported in 7 (3.4%) of the 207 patients who received the rhBMP-2 treatment compared with 5 (1.7%) of the 301 patients who received the autograft or lumbar disc treatment (p = 0.242, Fisher exact test). Cases of RE were reported in 7 (1.6%) of 445 patients who underwent a retroperitoneal spinal exposure; 5 RE cases were reported in 58 patients (8.6%) who underwent a transperitoneal approach. The difference in surgical approaches was significant (p = 0.007, Fisher exact test). There was no difference in the rate of RE based on the lumbar level exposed (p = 0.739). Multivariate analyses were consistent with the conclusions from Fisher exact tests. In the initial rhBMP-2 trial, after adjusting for effects of surgical approach and treated level, the difference in RE between the treatment groups (rhBMP-2 vs autograft or disc arthroplasty) was not significant (p = 0.177); however, the difference in RE between the retroperitoneal and transperitoneal approaches was significant (p = 0.029). CONCLUSIONS: In these 5 prospective randomized trials involving anterior lumbar interbody surgery, the use of rhBMP-2 was associated with a higher incidence of RE (3.4% vs 1.7%) but did not reach statistical significance. Based on surgical approach, the difference in rates of RE was statistically significant. This study reports on the outcomes of 5 prospective randomized FDA-approved investigational device exemption trials. Registration for studies became law in 2007. Four of these trials were completed before the law went into effect. The registration number for the lumbar disc arthroplasty trial is NCT00635843.

Lumbar disc arthroplasty with Maverick disc versus stand-alone interbody fusion: a prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter investigational device exemption trial.

STUDY DESIGN: Randomized, controlled, multicenter, investigational device exemption trial. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the safety and effectiveness of the first two-piece, metal-on-metal lumbar disc prosthesis for treating patients with single-level degenerative disc disease. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: For patients with degenerative disc disease unresponsive to conservative measures, lumbar disc arthroplasty provides an alternative to fusion designed to relieve persistent discogenic pain and maintain motion. METHODS: After 2:1 randomization, 577 patients were treated in either the investigational group (405), receiving lumbar disc arthroplasty, or the control group (172), receiving anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Patients were evaluated preoperatively, at surgery/discharge, and at 1.5, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after surgery. The primary study endpoint was overall success, a composite measure of safety and effectiveness as recommended by the Food and Drug Administration and defined in the protocol. RESULTS: Both treatment groups demonstrated significant improvements compared with preoperative status. The investigational group had statistically superior outcomes (P < 0.05) at all postoperative evaluations in Oswestry Disability Index, back pain, and Short Form-36 Physical Component Summary scores as well as patient satisfaction. Investigational patients had longer surgical times (P < 0.001) and greater blood loss (P < 0.001) than did control patients; however, hospitalization stays were similar for both groups. Investigational patients had fewer implant or implant/surgical procedure-related adverse events (P < 0.001). Return-to-work intervals were reduced for investigational patients. Disc height and segmental angular motion were maintained throughout the study in the investigational group. In the investigational group, overall success superiority was found when compared to the control group as defined by the Food and Drug Administration Investigational Device Exemption protocol. CONCLUSION: The investigational group consistently demonstrated statistical superiority versus fusion on key clinical outcomes including improved physical function, reduced pain, and earlier return to work.

Evaluation of a lumbar intervertebral spacer with integrated screws as a stand-alone fixation device.

STUDY DESIGN: An in vitro cadaveric biomechanics study. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the biomechanical contribution of the integration of screws into a polyether-ether-ketone (PEEK) spacer, and to compare the resulting construct to standard anterior lumbar interbody fusion constructs. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Pedicular fixation is often performed to increase the rigidity of anterior lumbar interbody fusion constructs but also increases the risk of morbidity. Integration of screws into a PEEK spacer (investigational device, ID) may increase construct rigidity and prevent migration without the drawbacks associated with supplementary fixation. METHODS: Twenty cadaveric motion segments were potted and tested under pure moments of + or - 7.5 Nm in flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial torsion. Discectomies were performed and specimens were instrumented with the ID + or - screws, dual threaded cages, structural graft+anterior plate, and graft+pedicle screws. The ID+screws and threaded cage constructs were then pulled out at a constant rate. RESULTS: All constructs reduced the mean range of motion (ROM) below the intact level in flexion-extension and lateral bending (P<0.001) and for all devices except cages in torsion (P < or = 0.05). The median flexion-extension/bending/torsion ROM was 9.5/9.4/4.1 degrees for the intact segments, 6.1/5.1/1.8 degrees with the ID+screws, 4.9/5.2/2.4 degrees with threaded cages, 3.3/4.4/1.1 degrees with plates and 1.4/1.6/1.7 degrees with pedicle screws, respectively. The addition of the integrated screws decreased the mean ROM of the ID constructs by 0.9 degrees in flexion-extension, 1.8 degrees in bending, and 2.8 degrees in flexion-extension. The peak pullout force was 962 N for the ID and 337 N for threaded cages. CONCLUSIONS: The incorporation of screws into a PEEK interbody device was evaluated alongside traditional constructs in terms of construct rigidity and resistance to pullout. The greatest contributions of the integrated screws are in limiting torsional motion and in the containment of the interbody device. Pedicular fixation produces the most rigid constructs, but integrating screws into a PEEK spacer produces a stand-alone construct that is similar to threaded cages and provides more resistance to anterior displacement.