Final Long-Term Reporting from a Randomized Controlled IDE Trial for Lumbar Artificial Discs in Single-Level Degenerative Disc Disease: 7-Year Results.

BACKGROUND: This study compared 7-year safety and efficacy outcomes of activL and ProDisc-L lumbar total disc replacements in patients with symptomatic, single-level lumbar degenerative disc disease (DDD). The objectives are to report 7-year outcomes of the trial, evaluate the outcomes for patients lost to follow-up, and determine whether early outcomes predict long-term outcomes. METHODS: This was a prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled investigational device exemption study. Eligible patients with symptomatic, single-level lumbar DDD had failed ≥6 months of nonsurgical management. Patients (N = 283) were randomized to receive activL (n = 218) or ProDisc-L (n = 65). At 7 years, data were available from 206 patients (activL, 160; ProDisc-L, 46). Logistic regression models were fit to predict 7-year outcomes for patients lost to follow-up after 2 years. RESULTS: At 7 years, the activL group was noninferior to the ProDisc-L group on the primary composite endpoint (P = .0369). Both groups showed significant reductions in back/leg pain severity and improvements in disability index and quality-of-life relative to baseline (P < .0001). In both groups, opioid use was significantly reduced at 7 years (0%) relative to baseline (P < .01), and the overall reoperation rates were low (4.6%). activL patients showed a significantly better range of motion (ROM) for flexion-extension rotation than ProDisc-L patients (P = .0334). A significantly higher proportion of activL patients did not report serious adverse events (activL, 62%; ProDisc-L, 43%; P = .011). Predictive modeling indicated that >70% of patients (depending on outcome) lost to follow-up after 2 years would show clinically significant improvement at 7 years if improvements were achieved at 2 years. CONCLUSIONS: The benefits of activL and ProDisc-L are maintained after 7 years, with significant improvements from baseline observed in pain, function, and opioid use. activL is more effective at preserving ROM than ProDisc-L and has a more favorable safety profile. Improvements in other primary and secondary outcomes were similar between both disc designs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1.

Five-year Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial for Lumbar Artificial Discs in Single-level Degenerative Disc Disease.

STUDY DESIGN: A prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled, investigational device exemption (IDE) noninferiority trial. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the 5-year safety and effectiveness of the activL Artificial Disc with Control Total Disc Replacement (TDR) systems (ProDisc-L or Charité) in the treatment of patients with symptomatic single-level lumbar degenerative disc disease (DDD). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The activL Artificial Disc received Food and Drug Administration approval in 2015 based on 2-year follow-up data. METHODS: Eligible patients presented with symptomatic, single-level, lumbar DDD who failed ≥6 months of nonsurgical management. At entry, 324 patients were randomly allocated (2 : 1) to treatment with activL (n = 218) or Control (n = 106, including n = 65 ProDisc-L and n = 41 Charité) TDR. At 5-year follow up, a total of 261 patients (176 activL patients and 85 Control patients) were available for analysis. RESULTS: The primary composite endpoint at 5 years for activL patients was noninferior to Control TDR. Relative to baseline, reductions in back pain severity and improvements in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were maintained for both the activL and Control TDR groups through 5 years. The activL group showed significantly better range of motion for flexion-extension rotation, flexion-extension translation, and disc angle, compared with Control TDR. Freedom from a serious adverse event through 5 years was 64% in activL patients, 47% in Control patients (log-rank P = 0.0068). Freedom from index-level and adjacent-level reoperation was high for TDR patients, ranging between 94% and 99%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Long-term evidence supports lumbar total disc replacement as safe. The next-generation activL Artificial Disc is more effective at preserving range of motion than first-generation lumbar TDRs (ProDisc-L and Charité) and offers a higher safety profile. Other primary and secondary outcomes are similar between disc designs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.

Are patient-reported outcomes predictive of patient satisfaction 5 years after anterior cervical spine surgery?

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Patient satisfaction is becoming an increasing common proxy for surgical quality; however, the correlation between patient satisfaction and surgical outcomes 2 and 5 years after anterior cervical surgery has not been evaluated. PURPOSE: The study aimed to determine if patient satisfaction is predicted by improvement in patient-reported outcomes (PRO) 2 and 5 years after anterior cervical spine surgery. STUDY DESIGN: This is a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. PATIENT SAMPLE: The sample included patients enrolled in the Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption clinical trial comparing total disc replacement with Mobi-C cervical artificial disc and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. OUTCOME MEASURES: The outcome measures were visual analog scale (VAS) neck pain score, Neck Disability Index (NDI), and Short-Form 12-Item scores, as well as patient satisfaction. METHODS: Receiver operating characteristic curves were used to determine if improvement in different PRO metrics can accurately identify patient satisfaction. Additionally, a logistic regression analysis was performed on the results at 24 months and 60 months to identify independent predictors of patient satisfaction. This research was supported by LDR (Zimmer Biomet) 13785 Research Boulevard - Suite 200 Austin, TX 78750. RESULTS: Data were available for 512 patients at 60 months. At 24 months postoperatively, NDI score improvement (area under the curve [AUC]=0.806), absolute NDI score (AUC=0.823), and absolute VAS neck pain score (AUC=0.808) were all excellent predictors of patient satisfaction. At 60 months postoperatively, NDI score improvement (AUC=0.815), absolute NDI score (AUC=0.839), VAS neck pain score improvement (AUC=0.803), and absolute VAS neck pain score (AUC=0.861) were all excellent predictors of patient satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing one- and two-level anterior cervical spine surgery, between 2 and 5 years postoperatively, patient satisfaction is significantly predicted by PROs, including the VAS neck score and the NDI.

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.

Lumbar Total Disc Replacement for Discogenic Low Back Pain: Two-year Outcomes of the activL Multicenter Randomized Controlled IDE Clinical Trial.

STUDY DESIGN: A prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled, investigational device exemption (IDE) noninferiority trial. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the comparative safety and effectiveness of lumbar total disc replacement (TDR) in the treatment of patients with symptomatic degenerative disc disease (DDD) who are unresponsive to nonsurgical therapy. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Lumbar TDR has been used to alleviate discogenic pain and dysfunction while preserving segmental range of motion and restoring stability. There is a paucity of data available regarding the comparative performance of lumbar TDR. METHODS: Patients presenting with symptomatic single-level lumbar DDD who failed at least 6 months of nonsurgical management were randomly allocated (2:1) to treatment with an investigational TDR device (activL, n = 218) or FDA-approved control TDR devices (ProDisc-L or Charité, n = 106). The hypothesis of this study was that a composite effectiveness outcome at 2 years in patients treated with activL would be noninferior (15% delta) to that in controls. RESULTS: The primary composite endpoint of this study was met, which demonstrated that the activL TDR was noninferior to control TDR (P < 0.001). A protocol-defined analysis of the primary composite endpoint also confirmed that activL was superior to controls (P = 0.02). Radiographic success was higher with activL versus controls (59% vs. 43%; P < 0.01). Mean back pain severity improved by 74% with activL and 68% with controls. Oswestry Disability Index scores decreased by 67% and 61% with activL and controls, respectively. Patient satisfaction with treatment was over 90% in both groups at 2 years. Return to work was approximately 1 month shorter (P = 0.08) with activL versus controls. The rate of device-related serious adverse events was lower in patients treated with activL versus controls (12% vs. 19%; P = 0.13). Surgical reintervention rates at the index level were comparable (activL 2.3%, control 1.9%). CONCLUSION: The single-level activL TDR is safe and effective for the treatment of symptomatic lumbar DDD through 2 years. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.

Spine care: evaluation of the efficacy and cost of emerging technology.

Over the last decade a number of new technologies have been introduced to the area of spine care. Although this recent explosion of innovation has brought advances to patient care, it has also brought concerns regarding overuse, increasing costs, and safety. A value-based approach to assessing and purchasing new technology depends on a shift toward comparative effectiveness analysis, transparency in pricing and potential conflicts of interest, and an alignment of incentives and goals among purchasers, consumers, and payers. How to assess the effectiveness of new technology in patient care is an unresolved issue for any cost-effectiveness analysis, as models traditionally used to assess medical therapies (ie, quality-adjusted life years) may not be directly applicable to analysis of surgical intervention. Spine surgeons must be involved in multidisciplinary collaborative efforts to develop models of efficacy analysis and to direct outcomes-based research to appropriately evaluate the benefits of surgical interventions and new technologies.