Results of the Prospective, Randomized, Multicenter Food and Drug Administration Investigational Device Exemption Study of the ProDisc®-L Total Disc Replacement Versus Circumferential Fusion for the Treatment of 1-Level Degenerative Disc Disease

Study Design. A prospective, randomized, multicenter, Food and Drug Administration-regulated Investigational Device Exemption clinical trial. Objective. To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the ProDisc®-L (Synthes Spine, West Chester, PA) lumbar total disc replacement compared to circumferential spinal fusion for the treatment of discogenic pain at 1 vertebral level between L3 and S1. Summary of Background Data. As part of the Investigational Device Exemption clinical trial, favorable single center results of lumbar total disc replacement with the ProDisc®-L have been reported previously. Methods. Two hundred eighty-six (286) patients were treated on protocol. Patients were evaluated before and after surgery, at 6 weeks, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. Evaluation at each visit included patient self-assessments, physical and neurologic examinations, and radiographic evaluation. Results. Safety of ProDisc®-L implantation was demonstrated with 0% major complications. At 24 months, 91.8% of investigational and 84.5% of control patients reported improvement in the Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI]) from preoperative levels, and 77.2% of investigational and 64.8% of control patients met the ≥15% Oswestry Disability Index improvement criteria. Overall neurologic success in the investigational group was superior to the control group (91.2% investigational and 81.4% control; P = 0.0341). At 6 weeks and 3 months follow-up time points, the ProDisc®-L patients recorded SF-36 Health Survey scores significantly higher than the control group (P = 0.018, P = 0.0036, respectively). The visual analog scale pain assessment showed statistically significant improvement from preoperative levels regardless of treatment (P < 0.0001). Visual analog scale patient satisfaction at 24 months showed a statistically significant difference favoring investigational patients over the control group (P = 0.015). Radiographic range of motion was maintained within a normal functional range in 93.7% of investigational patients and averaged 7.7°. Conclusions. ProDisc®-L has been found to be safe and efficacious. In properly chosen patients, ProDisc®-L has been shown to be superior to circumferential fusion by multiple clinical criteria.

[1]  T. Zdeblick A prospective, randomized study of lumbar fusion. Preliminary results. , 1993, Spine.

[2]  J. Katz,et al.  A Review of the 2001 Volvo Award Winner in Clinical Studies: Lumbar Fusion Versus Nonsurgical Treatment for Chronic Low Back Pain: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial From the Swedish Lumbar Spine Study Group , 2006, Spine.

[3]  S. Glassman,et al.  Clinical Outcomes and Fusion Success at 2 Years of Single-Level Instrumented Posterolateral Fusions With Recombinant Human Bone Morphogenetic Protein-2/Compression Resistant Matrix Versus Iliac Crest Bone Graft , 2006, Spine.

[4]  Rolando Garcia,et al.  A Prospective, Randomized, Multicenter Food and Drug Administration Investigational Device Exemptions Study of Lumbar Total Disc Replacement With the CHARITÉ™ Artificial Disc Versus Lumbar Fusion: Part I: Evaluation of Clinical Outcomes , 2005, Spine.

[5]  J. Bartko,et al.  Proving the null hypothesis. , 1991 .

[6]  M. Mackay,et al.  1997 Volvo Award Winner in Clinical Studies: Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis With Spinal Stenosis: A Prospective, Randomized Study Comparing Decompressive Laminectomy and Arthrodesis With and Without Spinal Instrumentation , 1997, Spine.

[7]  S. Chung,et al.  Comparative study of laparoscopic L5–S1 fusion versus open mini-ALIF, with a minimum 2-year follow-up , 2003, European Spine Journal.

[8]  A. Nordwall,et al.  2001 Volvo Award Winner in Clinical Studies: Lumbar Fusion Versus Nonsurgical Treatment for Chronic Low Back Pain: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial From the Swedish Lumbar Spine Study Group , 2001, Spine.

[9]  Manohar M. Panjabi,et al.  Clinical Biomechanics of the Spine , 1978 .

[10]  Anders Nordwall,et al.  Chronic Low Back Pain and Fusion: A Comparison of Three Surgical Techniques: A Prospective Multicenter Randomized Study From the Swedish Lumbar Spine Study Group , 2002, Spine.

[11]  J. Fairbank Revised Oswestry Disability questionnaire. , 2000, Spine.

[12]  Patrick Tropiano,et al.  Lumbar total disc replacement. Seven to eleven-year follow-up. , 2005, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[13]  S. Eiskjær,et al.  Circumferential Lumbar Spinal Fusion With Brantigan Cage Versus Posterolateral Fusion With Titanium Cotrel–Dubousset Instrumentation: A Prospective, Randomized Clinical Study of 146 Patients , 2002, Spine.

[14]  J. Skinner,et al.  Surgical vs nonoperative treatment for lumbar disk herniation: the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT): a randomized trial. , 2006, JAMA.

[15]  W C Blackwelder,et al.  "Proving the null hypothesis" in clinical trials. , 1981, Controlled clinical trials.

[16]  R. Molinari,et al.  Functional outcomes of instrumented posterior lumbar interbody fusion in active-duty US servicemen: a comparison with nonoperative management. , 2001, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[17]  S. Madan,et al.  Comparison of instrumented anterior interbody fusion with instrumented circumferential lumbar fusion , 2003, European Spine Journal.

[18]  Anders Nordwall,et al.  Complications in lumbar fusion surgery for chronic low back pain: comparison of three surgical techniques used in a prospective randomized study. A report from the Swedish Lumbar Spine Study Group , 2003, European Spine Journal.