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

Study Design. A prospective, randomized, multicenter, Food and Drug Administration-regulated Investigational Device Exemption clinical trial. Objectives. The purpose of this study was to compare the safety and effectiveness of lumbar total disc replacement, using the CHARITÉ™ artificial disc (DePuy Spine, Raynham, MA), with anterior lumbar interbody fusion, for the treatment of single-level degenerative disc disease from L4-S1 unresponsive to nonoperative treatment. Summary of Background Data. Reported results of lumbar total disc replacement have been favorable, but studies have been limited to retrospective case series and/or small sample sizes. Methods. Three hundred four (304) patients were enrolled in the study at 14 centers across the United States and randomized in a 2:1 ratio to treatment with the CHARITÉ™ artificial disc or the control group, instrumented anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Data were collected pre- and perioperatively at 6 weeks and at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months following surgery. The key clinical outcome measures were a Visual Analog Scale assessing back pain, the Oswestry Disability Index questionnaire, and the SF-36 Health Survey. Results. Patients in both groups improved significantly following surgery. Patients in the CHARITÉ™ artificial disc group recovered faster than patients in the control group. Patients in the CHARITÉ™ artificial discgroup had lower levels of disability at every time interval from 6 weeks to 24 months, compared with the control group, with statistically lower pain and disability scores at all but the 24 month follow-up (P < 0.05). At the 24-month follow-up period, a significantly greater percentage of patients in the CHARITÉ™ artificial disc group expressed satisfaction with their treatment and would have the same treatment again, compared with the fusion group (P < 0.05). The hospital stay was significantly shorter in the CHARITÉ™ artificial disc group (P < 0.05). The complication rate was similar between both groups. Conclusions. This prospective, randomized, multicenter study demonstrated that quantitative clinical outcome measures following lumbar total disc replacement with the CHARITÉ™ artificial disc are at least equivalent to clinical outcomes with anterior lumbar interbody fusion. These results support earlier reports in the literature that total disc replacement with the CHARITÉ™ artificial disc is a safe and effective alternative to fusion for the surgical treatment of symptomatic disc degeneration in properly indicated patients. The CHARITÉ™ artificial disc group demonstrated statistically significant superiority in two major economic areas, a 1-day shorter hospitalization, and a lower rate of reoperations (5.4% compared with 9.1%). At 24 months, the investigational group had a significantly higher rate of satisfaction (73.7%) than the 53.1% rate of satisfaction in the control group (P = 0.0011). This prospective randomized multicenter study also demonstrated an increase in employment of 9.1% in the investigational group and 7.2% in the control group.

[1]  B. Cunningham,et al.  Analysis of Porous Ingrowth in Intervertebral Disc Prostheses: A Nonhuman Primate Model , 2003, Spine.

[2]  W. Blackwelder,et al.  Sample size graphs for "proving the null hypothesis". , 1984, Controlled clinical trials.

[3]  W. S. Zeegers,et al.  Artificial disc replacement with the modular type SB Charité III: 2-year results in 50 prospectively studied patients , 1999, European Spine Journal.

[4]  S. Blumenthal,et al.  Artificial disc: preliminary results of a prospective study in the United States , 2002, European Spine Journal.

[5]  Bryan W Cunningham,et al.  Biomechanical Evaluation of Total Disc Replacement Arthroplasty: An In Vitro Human Cadaveric Model , 2003, Spine.

[6]  W. Skalli,et al.  Intervertebral Disc Prosthesis: Results and Prospects for the Year 2000 , 1997, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[7]  Philippe Gillet,et al.  The Fate of the Adjacent Motion Segments After Lumbar Fusion , 2003, Journal of spinal disorders & techniques.

[8]  F. Geisler Surgical technique of lumbar artificial disc replacement with the Charité artificial disc. , 2005, Neurosurgery.

[9]  P. Wood,et al.  Total ankle replacement: THE RESULTS IN 200 ANKLES , 2003 .

[10]  U. Fernström Arthroplasty with intercorporal endoprothesis in herniated disc and in painful disc. , 1966, Acta chirurgica Scandinavica. Supplementum.

[11]  K. Wood,et al.  Operative compared with nonoperative treatment of a thoracolumbar burst fracture without neurological deficit: a prospective randomized study with follow-up at sixteen to twenty-two years. , 2015, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[12]  Jeffrey C. Wang,et al.  Adjacent segment degeneration in the lumbar spine. , 2004, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[13]  Salvador A Brau,et al.  Mini-open approach to the spine for anterior lumbar interbody fusion: description of the procedure, results and complications. , 2002, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[14]  F. Geisler,et al.  Neurological complications of lumbar artificial disc replacement and comparison of clinical results with those related to lumbar arthrodesis in the literature: results of a multicenter, prospective, randomized investigational device exemption study of Charité intervertebral disc. Invited submission , 2004, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[15]  F. Postacchini,et al.  Results of Disc Prosthesis After a Minimum Follow‐Up Period of 2 Years , 1996, Spine.

[16]  S. L. Griffith,et al.  The Bagby and Kuslich Method of Lumbar Interbody Fusion: History, Techniques, and 2‐Year Follow‐up Results of a United States Prospective, Multicenter Trial , 1998, Spine.