Adjacent segment motion after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion versus Prodisc-c cervical total disk arthroplasty: analysis from a randomized, controlled trial. Comparison of BRYAN cervical disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical decompression and fusion: clinical and radiographic results of a randomized, controlled, clinical trial. Clinical outcomes with the Prestige II cervical disc: preliminary results from a prospective randomized clinical trial. The ProDisc-C prosthesis: clinical and radiological experience 1 year after surgery. Clinical and radiographic analysis of cervical disc arthroplasty compared with allograft fusion: a randomized controlled clinical trial. 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.
Post hoc analysis of data acquired in a prospective, randomized, controlled trial.
                To compare adjacent segment motion after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) versus cervical total disc arthroplasty (TDA).
                TDA has been designed to be a motion-preserving device, thus theoretically normalizing adjacent segment kinematics. Clinical studies with short-term follow-up have yet to demonstrate a consistent significant difference in the incidence of adjacent segment disease.
                Two hundred nine patients at 13 sites were treated in a prospective, randomized, controlled trial of ACDF versus TDA for single-level symptomatic cervical degenerative disc disease (SCDD). Flexion and extension radiographs were obtained at all follow-up visits. Changes in ROM were compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test and the Mann-Whitney U test. Predictors of postoperative ROM were determined by multivariate analysis using mixed effects linear regression.
                Data for 199 patients were available with 24-month follow-up. The groups were similar with respect to baseline demographics. A significant increase in motion at the cranial and caudal adjacent segments after surgery was observed in the ACDF group only (cranial: ACDF: +1.4° (0.4, 2.4), P = 0.01; TDA: +0.8°, (-0.1, +1.7), P = 0.166; caudal: ACDF: +2.6° (1.3, 3.9), P < 0.0001; TDA: +1.3, (-0.2, +2.8), P = 0.359). No significant difference in adjacent segment ROM was observed between ACDF and TDA. Only time was a significant predictor of postoperative ROM at both the cranial and caudal adjacent segments.
                Adjacent segment kinematics may be altered after ACDF and TDA. Multivariate analysis showed time to be a significant predictor of changes in adjacent segment ROM. No association between the treatment chosen (ACDF vs. TDA) and ROM was observed. Furthermore clinical follow-up is needed to determine whether possible differences in adjacent segment motion affect the prevalence of adjacent segment disease in the two groups. A prospective, randomized, multicenter study of surgical treatment of cervical disc disease.
                To assess the safety and efficacy of cervical disc arthroplasty using a new arthroplasty device at 24-months follow-up.
                Cervical disc arthroplasty preserves motion in the cervical spine. It is an alternative to fusion after neurologic decompression, whereas anterior decompression and fusion provides a rigorous comparative benchmark of success.
                We conducted a randomized controlled multicenter clinical trial enrolling patients with cervical disc disease. Ultimately 242 received the investigational device (Bryan Cervical Disc), and 221 patients underwent a single-level anterior cervical discectomy and decompression and fusion as a control group. Patients completed clinical and radiographic follow-up examinations at regular intervals for 2 years after surgery.
                Analysis of 12- and 24-month postoperative data showed improvement in all clinical outcome measures for both groups; however, 24 months after surgery, the investigational group patients treated with the artificial disc had a statistically greater improvement in the primary outcome variables: Neck disability index score (P = 0.025) and overall success (P = 0.010). With regard to implant- or implant/surgical-procedure-associated serious adverse events, the investigational group had a rate of 1.7% and the control group, 3.2%. There was no statistical difference between the 2 groups with regard to the rate of secondary surgical procedures performed subsequent to the index procedure. Patients who received the artificial cervical disc returned to work nearly 2 weeks earlier than the fusion patients (P = 0.015).
                Two-year follow-up results indicate that cervical disc arthroplasty is a viable alternative to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion in patients with persistently symptomatic, single-level cervical disc disease. A prospective, randomized clinical trial was conducted to compare the Prestige II Cervical Disc with anterior decompression and fusion for the treatment of single-level degenerative disease. Standardized clinical outcome measures and radiographic examinations were used at prescribed postoperative intervals to compare the treatment groups.
                Patients with symptomatic single-level cervical disc disease who met the inclusion/exclusion criteria defined in the protocol were randomized to receive the Prestige II disc or iliac crest autograft fusion. All patients underwent a standardized neurological and radiographic examination and completed outcomes questionnaires (Neck Disability Index and Short Form-36) preoperatively and at each postoperative interval (6 weeks and 3, 6, 12, and 24 months). Two independent radiologists reviewed all x-ray films and assessed motion at the treated level and adjacent segments. Standard statistical methods were used to compare all outcome measures. Preliminary results in 55 patients enrolled in the study are presented. Several patients have reached the final (24-month) follow-up interval. Clinical and radiographic results are encouraging, with significant improvement seen in both treatment groups. Radiographic results show that the Prestige II disc maintains motion at the treated level without adjacent-segment compromise.
                Cervical spine arthroplasty is an exciting and rapidly developing surgical treatment option. An objective comparison with fusion is important to advance this option. This is the first prospective randomized trial in which cervical arthroplasty is compared with fusion. The preliminary results from this limited number of patients indicate that the Prestige II disc is potentially a viable alternative to fusion for primary cervical disc disease; however, further clinical studies with larger sample sizes will be required to show statistical equivalence. This is a prospective randomized and controlled study, approved by the local ethical committee of Saarland (Germany).
                The aim of the current study was to analyze segmental motion following artificial disc replacement using disc prosthesis over 1 year. A second aim was to compare both segmental motion as well as clinical result to the current gold standard (anterior cervical discectomy and fusion [ACDF]).
                ACDF may be considered to be the gold standard for treatment of symptomatic degenerative disc disease within the cervical spine. However, fusion may result in progressive degeneration of the adjacent segments. Therefore, disc arthroplasty has been introduced. Among these, artificial disc replacement seems to be promising. However, segmental motion should be preserved. This, again, is very difficult to judge and has not yet been proven.
                A total of 49 patients with cervical disc herniation were enrolled and assigned to either study group (receiving a disc prosthesis) or control group (receiving ACDF, using a cage with bone graft and an anterior plate). Roentgen stereometric analysis (RSA) was used to quantify intervertebral motion immediately as well as 3, 6, 12, 24, and 52 weeks after surgery. Also, clinical results were judged using visual analog scale and neuro-examination at even RSA follow-up.
                Cervical spine segmental motion decreased over time in the presence of disc prosthesis or fusion device. However, the loss segmental motion is significantly higher in the fusion group, when looked at 3, 6, 12, 24, and 52 weeks after surgery. We observed significant pain reduction in neck and arm after surgery, without significant difference between both groups.
                Cervical spine disc prosthesis remains cervical spine segmental motion within the first 1 year after surgery. The clinical results are the same when compared with the early results following ACDF. The authors report the results of a prospective randomized multicenter study in which the results of cervical disc arthroplasty were compared with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) in patients treated for symptomatic single-level cervical degenerative disc disease (DDD).
                Five hundred forty-one patients with single-level cervical DDD and radiculopathy were enrolled at 32 sites and randomly assigned to one of two treatment groups: 276 patients in the investigational group underwent anterior cervical discectomy and decompression and arthroplasty with the PRESTIGE ST Cervical Disc System (Medtronic Sofamor Danek); 265 patients in the control group underwent decompressive ACDF. Eighty percent of the arthroplasty-treated patients (223 of 276) and 75% of the control patients (198 of 265) completed clinical and radiographic follow-up examinations at routine intervals for 2 years after surgery. Analysis of all currently available postoperative 12- and 24-month data indicated a two-point greater improvement in the neck disability index score in the investigational group than the control group. The arthroplasty group also had a statistically significant higher rate of neurological success (p = 0.005) as well as a lower rate of secondary revision surgeries (p = 0.0277) and supplemental fixation (p = 0.0031). The mean improvement in the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey Physical Component Summary scores was greater in the investigational group at 12 and 24 months, as was relief of neck pain. The patients in the investigational group returned to work 16 days sooner than those in the control group, and the rate of adjacent-segment reoperation was significantly lower in the investigational group as well (p = 0.0492, log-rank test). The cervical disc implant maintained segmental sagittal angular motion averaging more than 7 degrees. In the investigational group, there were no cases of implant failure or migration.
                The PRESTIGE ST Cervical Disc System maintained physiological segmental motion at 24 months after implantation and was associated with improved neurological success, improved clinical outcomes, and a reduced rate of secondary surgeries compared with ACDF. Cervical total disc replacement (CTDR) represents a relatively novel procedure intended to address some of the shortcomings associated with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) by preserving motion at the treated level. This prospective, randomized, multicenter study evaluates the safety and efficacy of a new metal-on-metal CTDR implant (Kineflex|C) by comparing it with ACDF in the treatment of single-level spondylosis with radiculopathy.
                The study was a prospective, randomized US FDA Investigational Device Exemption (IDE) pivotal trial conducted at 21 centers across the US. The primary clinical outcome measures included the Neck Disability Index (NDI), visual analog scale (VAS) scores, and a composite measure of clinical success. Patients were randomized to CTDR using the Kineflex|C (SpinalMotion, Inc.) cervical artificial disc or ACDF using structural allograft and an anterior plate.
                A total of 269 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to either CTDR (136 patients) or to ACDF (133 patients). There were no significant differences between the CTDR and ACDF groups when comparing operative time, blood loss, length of hospital stay, or the reoperation rate at the index level. The overall success rate was significantly greater in the CTDR group (85%) compared with the ACDF group (71%) (p = 0.05). In both groups, the mean NDI scores improved significantly by 6 weeks after surgery and remained significantly improved throughout the 24-month follow-up (p < 0.0001). Similarly, the VAS pain scores improved significantly by 6 weeks and remained significantly improved through the 24-month follow-up (p < 0.0001). The range of motion (ROM) in the CTDR group decreased at 3 months but was significantly greater than the preoperative mean at 12- and 24-month follow-up. The ROM in the ACDF group was significantly reduced by 3 months and remained so throughout the follow-up. Adjacent-level degeneration was also evaluated in both groups from preoperatively to 2-year follow-up and was classified as none, mild, moderate, or severe. Preoperatively, there were no significant differences between groups when evaluating the different levels of adjacent-level degeneration. At the 2-year follow-up, there were significantly more patients in the ACDF group with severe adjacent-level radiographic changes (p < 0.0001). However, there were no significant differences between groups in adjacent-level reoperation rate (7.6% for the Kineflex|C group and 6.1% for the ACDF group).
                Cervical total disc replacement allows for neural decompression and clinical results comparable to ACDF. Kineflex|C was associated with a significantly greater overall success rate than fusion while maintaining motion at the index level. Furthermore, there were significantly fewer Kineflex|C patients showing severe adjacent-level radiographic changes at the 2-year follow-up. These results from a prospective, randomized study support that Kineflex|C CTDR is a viable alternative to ACDF in select patients with cervical radiculopathy.
There was a tendency for clinical results to be in favour of arthroplasty; often these were statistically significant. However, differences in effect size were invariably small and not clinically relevant for all primary outcomes. Significance was often gained or lost in the varying sensitivity analyses, probably owing to the relatively small number of studies, in combination with the small differences that were found. Given the fact that all of the included studies were not blinded, this could be due to patient or carer expectations. However, at this time both treatments can be seen as valid options with respect to results at a maximum of one to two years. Given the current absence of truly long-term results, use of these mobile disc prostheses should still be limited to clinical trials.There was high-quality evidence that the goal of preservation of segmental mobility in arthroplasty was met. A statistically significant effect on the incidence of secondary symptoms at adjacent levels, the primary goal of arthroplasty over fusion, was not found at one to two years. If there was a protective effect, this should become clearer over time. A future update, when studies with 'truly long-term' results (five years or more) become available, should focus on this issue.