Cervical disc arthroplasty: 10-year outcomes of the Prestige LP cervical disc at a single level.

OBJECTIVEFood and Drug Administration-approved investigational device exemption (IDE) studies have provided level I evidence supporting cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) as a safe and effective alternative to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). Long-term CDA outcomes continue to be evaluated. Here, the authors present outcomes at 10 years postoperatively for the single-level CDA arm of an IDE study (postapproval study).METHODSThe primary endpoint was overall success, a composite variable composed of five criteria: 1) Neck Disability Index score improvement ≥ 15 points; 2) maintenance or improvement in neurological status; 3) no decline in anterior or posterior functional spinal unit (FSU) height of more than 2 mm compared to 6 weeks postoperatively; 4) no serious adverse event (AE) caused by the implant or the implant and the surgical procedure; and 5) no additional surgery classified as a failure. Additional safety and effectiveness measures included numeric rating scales for neck pain and arm pain, SF-36 quality-of-life physical and mental components, patient satisfaction, range of motion, and AEs.RESULTSFrom the reported assessments at 7 years postoperatively to the 10-year postoperative follow-up, the scores for all patient-reported outcomes, rate of overall success (without FSU), and proportion of patients at least maintaining their neurological function remained stable for the CDA group. Nine patients had secondary surgery at the index level, increasing the secondary surgery cumulative rate from 6.6% to 10.3%. In that same time frame, four patients experienced a serious implant or implant/surgical procedure-related AE, for a 10-year cumulative rate of 7.8%. Seven patients had any second surgery at adjacent levels, for a 10-year cumulative rate of 13.8%. Average angular motion at both the index and adjacent levels was well maintained without creating hypermobility. Class IV heterotopic ossification increased from 1.2% at 2 years to 4.6% at 7 years and 9.0% at 10 years. Patient satisfaction was > 90% at 10 years.CONCLUSIONSCDA remained safe and effective out to 10 years postoperatively, with results comparable to 7-year outcomes and with high patient satisfaction.Clinical trial registration no.: NCT00667459 (clinicaltrials.gov).

[1]  William F Lavelle,et al.  Ten-year Outcomes of Cervical Disc Replacement With the BRYAN Cervical Disc: Results From a Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial , 2019, Spine.

[2]  D. Coric,et al.  Cervical Disc Arthroplasty: Current Evidence and Real-World Application , 2018, Neurosurgery.

[3]  J. Jacobs,et al.  Chromium and Nickel Concentrations in Subjects with a Stainless Steel Metal-on-Metal Cervical Disc Arthroplasty: Results from a Prospective Longitudinal Study with 7 Years Follow-Up , 2018, International Journal of Spine Surgery.

[4]  J. Vital,et al.  Outcomes of the Bryan cervical disc replacement: fifteen year follow-up , 2018, International Orthopaedics.

[5]  G. Buttermann Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Outcomes over 10 Years: A Prospective Study , 2018, Spine.

[6]  W. Ding,et al.  Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion surgery versus total disc replacement: A comparative study with minimum of 10-year follow-up , 2017, Scientific Reports.

[7]  A. Korge,et al.  Clinical and radiological outcome at 10 years of follow-up after total cervical disc replacement , 2017, European Spine Journal.

[8]  T. Lanman,et al.  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. , 2017, Journal of Neurosurgery : Spine.

[9]  F. Schranck,et al.  Serum Metal Concentrations in Patients With Titanium Ceramic Composite Cervical Disc Replacements , 2017, Spine.

[10]  Martin H. Pham,et al.  Adjacent segment disease requiring reoperation in cervical total disc arthroplasty: A literature review and update , 2017, Journal of Clinical Neuroscience.

[11]  P. Demaerel,et al.  10-year follow-up after implantation of the Bryan Cervical Disc Prosthesis , 2016, European Spine Journal.

[12]  T. Albert,et al.  Five-year clinical results of cervical total disc replacement compared with anterior discectomy and fusion for treatment of 2-level symptomatic degenerative disc disease: a prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter investigational device exemption clinical trial. , 2016, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[13]  Kee D. Kim,et al.  Prospective, Randomized Comparison of One-level Mobi-C Cervical Total Disc Replacement vs. Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: Results at 5-year Follow-up , 2016, International Journal of Spine Surgery.

[14]  R. Delamarter,et al.  ProDisc-C Total Disc Replacement Versus Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion for Single-Level Symptomatic Cervical Disc Disease: Seven-Year Follow-up of the Prospective Randomized U.S. Food and Drug Administration Investigational Device Exemption Study. , 2015, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[15]  F. Harrell,et al.  Cervical Disc Arthroplasty with Prestige LP Disc Versus Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: Seven-Year Outcomes , 2015, International Journal of Spine Surgery.

[16]  F. Harrell,et al.  Cervical disc arthroplasty with PRESTIGE LP disc versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a prospective, multicenter investigational device exemption study. , 2015, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[17]  F. Geisler,et al.  Long-term Outcomes of the US FDA IDE Prospective, Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial Comparing PCM Cervical Disc Arthroplasty With Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion , 2015, Spine.

[18]  Kyunghoon Min,et al.  Bone loss of the superior adjacent vertebral body immediately posterior to the anterior flange of Bryan cervical disc , 2015, European Spine Journal.

[19]  Regis W Haid,et al.  Clinical and radiographic analysis of an artificial cervical disc: 7-year follow-up from the Prestige prospective randomized controlled clinical trial: Clinical article. , 2014, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[20]  R. Hacker,et al.  Very Late Complications of Cervical Arthroplasty: Results of 2 Controlled Randomized Prospective Studies From a Single Investigator Site , 2013, Spine.

[21]  Andrew S. Mugglin,et al.  Clinical Outcomes With Selectively Constrained SECURE-C Cervical Disc Arthroplasty: Two-Year Results From a Prospective, Randomized, Controlled, Multicenter Investigational Device Exemption Study , 2013, Spine.

[22]  M. Maltenfort,et al.  Rate of Adjacent Segment Disease in Cervical Disc Arthroplasty Versus Single-Level Fusion: Meta-analysis of Prospective Studies , 2013, Spine.

[23]  A. Hilibrand,et al.  Adjacent Segment Pathology Following Cervical Motion-Sparing Procedures or Devices Compared With Fusion Surgery: A Systematic Review , 2012, Spine.

[24]  Zheng Guo,et al.  Implant Failure of Bryan Cervical Disc due to Broken Polyurethane Sheath: A Case Report , 2012, Spine.

[25]  D. Brewer,et al.  A systematic review of cervical artificial disc replacement wear characteristics and durability , 2012, Evidence-Based Spine-Care Journal EBSJ Focus Issue: Cervical Artificial Disc Replacement.

[26]  K. Riew,et al.  Adjacent segment disease and C-ADR: promises fulfilled? , 2012, Evidence-Based Spine-Care Journal EBSJ Focus Issue: Cervical Artificial Disc Replacement.

[27]  J. Vital,et al.  Heterotopic ossification after cervical disc replacement: clinical significance and radiographic analysis. A prospective study. , 2012, Acta orthopaedica Belgica.

[28]  P. Anderson,et al.  Results of cervical arthroplasty compared with anterior discectomy and fusion: four-year clinical outcomes in a prospective, randomized controlled trial. , 2011, Orthopedics.

[29]  D. Ohnmeiss,et al.  Prospective, randomized, multicenter study of cervical arthroplasty: 269 patients from the Kineflex|C artificial disc investigational device exemption study with a minimum 2-year follow-up: clinical article. , 2011, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[30]  L. Tumialán,et al.  Progressive Vertebral Body Osteolysis After Cervical Disc Arthroplasty , 2011, Spine.

[31]  A. Peolsson,et al.  A Comparison Between the Carbon Fiber Cage and the Cloward Procedure in Cervical Spine Surgery: A Ten- to Thirteen-Year Follow-Up of a Prospective Randomized Study , 2011, Spine.

[32]  D. Ohnmeiss,et al.  Early Failure of Metal-on-Metal Artificial Disc Prostheses Associated with Lymphocytic Reaction: Diagnosis and Treatment Experience in Four Cases , 2011, Spine.

[33]  P. Nunley,et al.  Delayed Hyper-Reactivity to Metal Ions After Cervical Disc Arthroplasty: A Case Report and Literature Review , 2009, Spine.

[34]  P. Barša,et al.  Heterotopic Ossification in Total Cervical Artificial Disc Replacement , 2006, Spine.

[35]  Daniel H. Kim,et al.  Historical review of cervical arthroplasty. , 2004, Neurosurgical focus.

[36]  S. Mior,et al.  The Neck Disability Index: a study of reliability and validity. , 1991, Journal of manipulative and physiological therapeutics.

[37]  R. B. Cloward Vertebral body fusion for ruptured cervical discs. , 1959, American journal of surgery.

[38]  R. Robinson,et al.  The treatment of certain cervical-spine disorders by anterior removal of the intervertebral disc and interbody fusion. , 1958, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[39]  Feifei Zhou,et al.  Application of Cervical Arthroplasty With Bryan Cervical Disc: 10-Year Follow-up Results in China. , 2016, Spine.

[40]  Joseph D. Smucker,et al.  Long-Term Clinical Outcomes of Cervical Disc Arthroplasty: A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Trial. , 2016, Spine.

[41]  C. Chung,et al.  Early development and progression of heterotopic ossification in cervical total disc replacement. , 2012, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.