Lumbar Disc Arthroplasty With MAVERICK Disc Versus Stand-Alone Interbody Fusion: A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled, Multicenter Investigational Device Exemption Trial

Study Design. Randomized, controlled, multicenter, investigational device exemption trial. Objective. To investigate the safety and effectiveness of the first two-piece, metal-on-metal lumbar disc prosthesis for treating patients with single-level degenerative disc disease. Summary of Background Data. For patients with degenerative disc disease unresponsive to conservative measures, lumbar disc arthroplasty provides an alternative to fusion designed to relieve persistent discogenic pain and maintain motion. Methods. After 2:1 randomization, 577 patients were treated in either the investigational group (405), receiving lumbar disc arthroplasty, or the control group (172), receiving anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Patients were evaluated preoperatively, at surgery/discharge, and at 1.5, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after surgery. The primary study endpoint was overall success, a composite measure of safety and effectiveness as recommended by the Food and Drug Administration and defined in the protocol. Results. Both treatment groups demonstrated significant improvements compared with preoperative status. The investigational group had statistically superior outcomes (P < 0.05) at all postoperative evaluations in Oswestry Disability Index, back pain, and Short Form-36 Physical Component Summary scores as well as patient satisfaction. Investigational patients had longer surgical times (P < 0.001) and greater blood loss (P < 0.001) than did control patients; however, hospitalization stays were similar for both groups. Investigational patients had fewer implant or implant/surgical procedure-related adverse events (P < 0.001). Return-to-work intervals were reduced for investigational patients. Disc height and segmental angular motion were maintained throughout the study in the investigational group. In the investigational group, overall success superiority was found when compared to the control group as defined by the Food and Drug Administration Investigational Device Exemption protocol. Conclusion. The investigational group consistently demonstrated statistical superiority versus fusion on key clinical outcomes including improved physical function, reduced pain, and earlier return to work.

[1]  D. Alander,et al.  A granulomatous mass surrounding a Maverick total disc replacement causing iliac vein occlusion and spinal stenosis: a case report. , 2010, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[2]  N. Goldfarb,et al.  Indirect costs associated with surgery for low back pain-a secondary analysis of clinical trial data. , 2010, Population health management.

[3]  Andrew Cappuccino,et al.  Prospective, randomized, multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study of lumbar total disc replacement with the CHARITE artificial disc versus lumbar fusion: five-year follow-up. , 2009, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[4]  R. Guyer,et al.  An economic model of one-level lumbar arthroplasty versus fusion. , 2007, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[5]  E. Hansen,et al.  Circumferential Fusion Improves Outcome in Comparison With Instrumented Posterolateral Fusion: Long-term Results of a Randomized Clinical Trial , 2006, Spine.

[6]  James H. Maxwell,et al.  Evaluation of Surgical Volume and the Early Experience With Lumbar Total Disc Replacement as Part of the Investigational Device Exemption Study of the Charité Artificial Disc , 2006, Spine.

[7]  H. M. Mayer,et al.  Clinical Results of Total Lumbar Disc Replacement With ProDisc II: Three-Year Results for Different Indications , 2006, Spine.

[8]  Marc-Antoine Rousseau,et al.  Disc arthroplasty design influences intervertebral kinematics and facet forces. , 2006, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[9]  M. Battié,et al.  Lumbar disc degeneration: epidemiology and genetics. , 2006, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[10]  Xiaobing Fu,et al.  Possible Pathogenesis of Painful Intervertebral Disc Degeneration , 2006, Spine.

[11]  T. Kershaw,et al.  The Treatment of Disabling Multilevel Lumbar Discogenic Low Back Pain With Total Disc Arthroplasty Utilizing the ProDisc Prosthesis: A Prospective Study With 2-Year Minimum Follow-up , 2005 .

[12]  J. Le Huec,et al.  Clinical results of Maverick lumbar total disc replacement: two-year prospective follow-up. , 2005, The Orthopedic clinics of North America.

[13]  J. Burkus,et al.  Use of rhBMP-2 in combination with structural cortical allografts: clinical and radiographic outcomes in anterior lumbar spinal surgery. , 2005, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

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

[15]  T. Zdeblick,et al.  Design rationale and biomechanics of Maverick Total Disc arthroplasty with early clinical results. , 2004, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[16]  Moe R. Lim,et al.  Range of motion and adjacent level degeneration after lumbar total disc replacement. , 2004, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[17]  T. Kershaw,et al.  The treatment of disabling multilevel lumbar discogenic low back pain with total disc arthroplasty utilizing the ProDisc prosthesis: a prospective study with 2-year minimum follow-up. , 2004, Spine.

[18]  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.

[19]  E. Dawson,et al.  A Prospective, Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial of Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using a Titanium Cylindrical Threaded Fusion Device , 2004, Spine.

[20]  F. Oner,et al.  Complications of Artificial Disc Replacement: A Report of 27 Patients with the SB Charité Disc , 2003, Journal of spinal disorders & techniques.

[21]  B. Cunningham,et al.  Classification of heterotopic ossification (HO) in artificial disk replacement. , 2003 .

[22]  T. Zdeblick,et al.  Is INFUSE Bone Graft Superior to Autograft Bone? An Integrated Analysis of Clinical Trials Using the LT-CAGE Lumbar Tapered Fusion Device , 2003, Journal of spinal disorders & techniques.

[23]  C. Dickman,et al.  Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using rhBMP-2 With Tapered Interbody Cages , 2002, Journal of spinal disorders & techniques.

[24]  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.

[25]  T. Kleeman,et al.  Laparoscopic Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion With rhBMP-2: A Prospective Study of Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes , 2001, Spine.

[26]  K. Foley,et al.  Surgical Interbody Research Group--radiographic assessment of interbody fusion devices: fusion criteria for anterior lumbar interbody surgery. , 2001, Neurosurgical focus.

[27]  V. Goel,et al.  Load-Sharing Between Anterior and Posterior Elements in a Lumbar Motion Segment Implanted With an Artificial Disc , 2001, Spine.

[28]  P. Pynsent,et al.  The Oswestry Disability Index. , 2000, Spine.

[29]  D Dowson,et al.  A comparative joint simulator study of the wear of metal-on-metal and alternative material combinations in hip replacements , 2000, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Part H, Journal of engineering in medicine.

[30]  Michael Tanzer,et al.  The Otto Aufranc Award. Wear and lubrication of metal-on-metal hip implants. , 1999, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[31]  H A Yuan,et al.  The artificial disc: theory, design and materials. , 1996, Biomaterials.

[32]  C. Sherbourne,et al.  The MOS 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): III. Tests of data quality, scaling assumptions, and reliability across diverse patient groups. , 1994 .

[33]  T J Joyce,et al.  Early failure of metal-on-metal bearings in hip resurfacing and large-diameter total hip replacement: A consequence of excess wear. , 2010, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[34]  John R. Johnson,et al.  Posterolateral lumbar spine fusion with INFUSE bone graft. , 2007, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[35]  B. Cunningham,et al.  Prevalence of heterotopic ossification following total disc replacement. A prospective, randomized study of two hundred and seventy-six patients. , 2007, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[36]  Jeffrey C. Wang,et al.  Lumbar disc arthroplasty. , 2005, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[37]  Kevin F. Spratt,et al.  Classification of Age-Related Changes in Lumbar Intervertebral Discs , 2002 .