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.

Prospective, Randomized Comparison of One-level Mobi-C Cervical Total Disc Replacement vs. Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: Results at 5-year Follow-up.

INTRODUCTION: There is increasing interest in the role of cervical total disc replacement (TDR) as an alternative to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). Multiple prospective randomized studies with minimum 2 year follow-up have shown TDR to be at least as safe and effective as ACDF in treating symptomatic degenerative disc disease at a single level. The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes of cervical TDR using the Mobi-C(®) with ACDF at 5-year follow-up. METHODS: This prospective, randomized, controlled trial was conducted as a Food and Drug Administration regulated Investigational Device Exemption trial across 23 centers with 245 patients randomized (2:1) to receive TDR with Mobi-C(®) Cervical Disc Prosthesis or ACDF with anterior plate and allograft. Outcome assessments included a composite overall success score, Neck Disability Index (NDI), visual analog scales (VAS) assessing neck and arm pain, Short Form-12 (SF-12) health survey, patient satisfaction, major complications, subsequent surgery, segmental range of motion, and adjacent segment degeneration. RESULTS: The 60-month follow-up rate was 85.5% for the TDR group and 78.9% for the ACDF group. The composite overall success was 61.9% with TDR vs. 52.2% with ACDF, demonstrating statistical non-inferiority. Improvements in NDI, VAS neck and arm pain, and SF-12 scores were similar between groups and were maintained from earlier follow-up through 60 months. There was no significant difference between TDR and ACDF in adverse events or major complications. Range of motion was maintained with TDR through 60 months. Device-related subsequent surgeries (TDR: 3.0%, ACDF: 11.1%, p<0.02) and adjacent segment degeneration at the superior level (TDR: 37.1%, ACDF: 54.7%, p<0.03) were significantly lower for TDR patients. CONCLUSIONS: Five-year results demonstrate the safety and efficacy of TDR with the Mobi-C as a viable alternative to ACDF with the potential advantage of lower rates of reoperation and adjacent segment degeneration, in the treatment of one-level symptomatic cervical degenerative disc disease. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This prospective, randomized study with 5-year follow-up adds to the existing literature indicating that cervical TDR is a viable alternative to ACDF in appropriately selected patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: This is a Level I study.

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 ).

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 ).

Prospective, Randomized Comparison of Cervical Total Disk Replacement Versus Anterior Cervical Fusion: Results at 48 Months Follow-up.

STUDY DESIGN: This was a prospective, randomized, controlled multicenter trial. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare clinical outcomes at 4-year follow-up of patients receiving cervical total disk replacement (TDR) with those receiving anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: ACDF has been the traditional treatment for symptomatic disk degeneration. Several studies found single-level TDR to be as safe and effective as ACDF at ≥2 years follow-up. METHODS: Patients from 23 centers were randomized in a 2:1 ratio with 164 receiving the investigational device (Mobi-C Cervical Disc Prosthesis) and 81 receiving ACDF using an anterior plate and allograft. Patients were evaluated preoperatively and 6 weeks, 3, 6, 12, 18, 24, 36, and 48 months postoperatively. Outcome assessments included a composite success score, Neck Disability Index, visual analog scales assessing neck and arm pain, patient satisfaction, major complications, subsequent surgery, segmental range of motion, and adjacent-segment degeneration. RESULTS: The composite success rate was similar in the 2 groups at 48-month follow-up. Mean Neck Disability Index, visual analog scale, and SF-12 scores were significantly improved in early follow-up in both groups with improvements maintained throughout 48 months. On some measures, TDR had significantly greater improvement during early follow-up. At no follow-up were TDR scores significantly worse than ACDF scores. Subsequent surgery rate was significantly higher for ACDF compared with TDR (9.9% vs. 3.0%, P<0.05). Range of motion was maintained with TDR having a mean baseline value of 8 degrees compared with 10 degrees at 48 months. The incidence of adjacent-segment degeneration was significantly higher with ACDF at inferior and superior segments compared with TDR (inferior: 50% vs. 30%, P<0.025; superior: 53% vs. 34%, P<0.025). CONCLUSIONS: Significant improvements were observed in pain and function. TDR patients maintained motion and had significantly lower rates of reoperation and adjacent-segment degeneration compared with ACDF. This study supports the safety and efficacy of TDR in appropriately selected patients.

Multi-center, prospective, randomized, controlled investigational device exemption clinical trial comparing Mobi-C Cervical Artificial Disc to anterior discectomy and fusion in the treatment of symptomatic degenerative disc disease in the cervical spine.

BACKGROUND: Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is the gold standard for treating symptomatic cervical disc degeneration. Cervical total disc replacements (TDRs) have emerged as an alternative for some patients. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of a new TDR device compared with ACDF for treating single-level cervical disc degeneration. METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulated Investigational Device Exemption (IDE) study. A total of 245 patients were treated (164 TDR: 81 ACDF). The primary outcome measure was overall success based on improvement in Neck Disability Index (NDI), no subsequent surgical interventions, and no adverse events (AEs) classified as major complications. Secondary outcome measures included SF-12, visual analog scale (VAS) assessing neck and arm pain, patient satisfaction, radiographic range of motion, and adjacent level degeneration. Patients were evaluated preoperatively and postoperatively at 6 weeks, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. The hypothesis was that the TDR success rate was non-inferior to ACDF at 24 months. RESULTS: Overall success rates were 73.6% for TDR and 65.3% for ACDF, confirming non-inferiority (p < 0.0025). TDR demonstrated earlier improvements with significant differences in NDI scores at 6 weeks and 3 months, and VAS neck pain and SF-12 PCS scores at 6 weeks (p<0.05). Operative level range of motion in the TDR group was maintained throughout follow-up. Radiographic evidence of inferior adjacent segment degeneration was significantly greater with ACDF at 12 and 24 months (p < 0.05). AE rates were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Mobi-C TDR is a safe and effective treatment for single-level disc degeneration, producing outcomes similar to ACDF with less adjacent segment degeneration. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study adds to the literature supporting cervical TDR as a viable option to ACDF in appropriately selected patients with disc degeneration.

Cervical total disc replacement with the Mobi-C cervical artificial disc compared with anterior discectomy and fusion for treatment of 2-level symptomatic degenerative disc disease: a prospective, randomized, controlled multicenter clinical trial: clinical article.

OBJECT: Cervical total disc replacement (TDR) is intended to treat neurological symptoms and neck pain associated with degeneration of intervertebral discs in the cervical spine. Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) has been the standard treatment for these indications since the procedure was first developed in the 1950s. While TDR has been shown to be a safe and effective alternative to ACDF for treatment of patients with degenerative disc disease (DDD) at a single level of the cervical spine, few studies have focused on the safety and efficacy of TDR for treatment of 2 levels of the cervical spine. The primary objective of this study was to rigorously compare the Mobi-C cervical artificial disc to ACDF for treatment of cervical DDD at 2 contiguous levels of the cervical spine. METHODS: This study was a prospective, randomized, US FDA investigational device exemption pivotal trial of the Mobi-C cervical artificial disc conducted at 24 centers in the US. The primary clinical outcome was a composite measure of study success at 24 months. The comparative control treatment was ACDF using allograft bone and an anterior plate. A total of 330 patients were enrolled, randomized, and received study surgery. All patients were diagnosed with intractable symptomatic cervical DDD at 2 contiguous levels of the cervical spine between C-3 and C-7. Patients were randomized in a 2:1 ratio (TDR patients to ACDF patients). RESULTS: A total of 225 patients received the Mobi-C TDR device and 105 patients received ACDF. At 24 months only 3.0% of patients were lost to follow-up. On average, patients in both groups showed significant improvements in Neck Disability Index (NDI) score, visual analog scale (VAS) neck pain score, and VAS arm pain score from preoperative baseline to each time point. However, the TDR patients experienced significantly greater improvement than ACDF patients in NDI score at all time points and significantly greater improvement in VAS neck pain score at 6 weeks, and at 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. On average, patients in the TDR group also maintained preoperative segmental range of motion at both treated segments immediately postoperatively and throughout the study period of 24 months. The reoperation rate was significantly higher in the ACDF group at 11.4% compared with 3.1% for the TDR group. Furthermore, at 24 months TDR demonstrated statistical superiority over ACDF based on overall study success rates. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study represent the first available Level I clinical evidence in support of cervical arthroplasty at 2 contiguous levels of the cervical spine using the Mobi-C cervical artificial disc. These results continue to support the use of cervical arthroplasty in general, but specifically demonstrate the advantages of 2-level arthroplasty over 2-level ACDF. Clinical trial registration no.: NCT00389597 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Minimally invasive trans-sacral approach to L5-S1 interbody fusion: Preliminary results from 1 center and review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: Lumbar interbody fusion has long been used for the treatment of painful degenerative spinal conditions. The anterior approach is not feasible in some patients, and the posterior approach is associated with a risk of neural complications and possibly muscle injury. A trans-sacral technique was developed that allows access to the L5-S1 disc space. The purposes of this study were to investigate the clinical outcome of trans-sacral interbody fusion in a consecutive series of patients from 1 center and to perform a comprehensive review of the literature on this procedure. METHODS: A literature search using PubMed was performed to identify articles published on trans-sacral axial lumbar interbody fusion (AxiaLIF). Articles reviewed included biomechanical testing, feasibility of the technique, and clinical results. The data from our center were collected retrospectively from charts for the consecutive series, beginning with the first case, of all patients undergoing fusion using the AxiaLIF technique. In most cases, posterior instrumentation was also used. A total of 41 patients with at least 6 months' follow-up were included (mean follow-up, 22.2 months). The primary clinical outcome measures were visual analog scales separately assessing back and leg pain and the Oswestry Disability Index. Radiographic assessment of fusion was also performed. RESULTS: In the group of 28 patients undergoing single-level AxiaLIF combined with posterior fusion, the visual analog scale scores assessing back and leg pain and mean Oswestry Disability Index scores improved significantly (P < .01). In the remaining 13 patients, back pain improved significantly with a trend for improvement in leg pain. Reoperation occurred in 19.5% of patients; in half of these, reoperation was not related to the anterior procedure. CONCLUSIONS: A review of the literature found that the AxiaLIF technique was similar to other fusion techniques with respect to biomechanical properties and produced acceptable clinical outcomes, although results varied among studies. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The AxiaLIF approach allows access to the L5-S1 interspace without violating the annulus or longitudinal ligaments and with minimal risk to dorsal neural elements. It may be a viable alternative to other approaches to interbody fusion at the L5-S1 level. It is important that the patients be selected carefully and surgeons are familiar with the presacral anatomy and the surgical approach.

L5 radiculopathy caused by L5 nerve root entrapment by an L5-S1 anterior osteophyte.

BACKGROUND: L5 radiculopathy is a common problem that has several causes. Entrapment of the L5 nerve root by anterior osteophytes at the L5-S1 junction is rarely reported. Posterior decompression of the L5 nerve root is commonly performed, but anterior decompression of the L5 nerve root is not a frequently performed procedure. The purpose of this case report is to describe an uncommon case of L5 radiculopathy caused by the entrapment of the L5 nerve root by an anterior osteophyte. METHODS: We report the case of a 79-year-old man with a right lower extremity L5 radiculopathy causing excruciating pain, worsening with transitioning between seated and standing positions. Radiologic evaluation showed a large osteophyte coming off of the right anterolateral border of L5-S1. The osteophyte was excised through a right-sided anterior retroperitoneal approach. An anterior interbody fusion was performed at L5-S1. RESULTS: Postoperatively, the patient's pain was completely resolved. Six months after surgery, he remained symptom free. CONCLUSIONS: Osteophytes at the L5-S1 junction can entrap the L5 nerve root. If nonoperative treatment fails, the osteophyte can be excised and the nerve can be safely decompressed through an anterior retroperitoneal approach.