+ Site Statistics
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Comparison of 2 lumbar total disc replacements: results of a prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter Food and Drug Administration trial with 24-month follow-up



Comparison of 2 lumbar total disc replacements: results of a prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter Food and Drug Administration trial with 24-month follow-up



Spine 39(12): 925-931



This was a prospective, randomized, controlled multicenter study with 24-month follow-up. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy in a Food and Drug Administration Investigation Device Exemption of a new lumbar total disc replacement (TDR) by comparing it to an earlier TDR approved for sale. Randomized trials have reported TDR to produce results similar or superior to lumbar fusion. Results for various TDRs seem to be similar, but differences in study design and outcome measures pose challenges in definitively comparing devices. The purpose of this study was to perform a direct comparison of 2 lumbar TDRs in a prospective, randomized trial. TDR was performed in 457 patients from 21 sites (261 patients in the investigational group (Kineflex-L Disc; metal-on-metal design anchored with keels, 204 randomized and 57 nonrandomized training cases), and 196 in the control group (CHARITE artificial disc; metal with polyethylene core with teeth for anchoring; 190 randomized and 6 nonrandomized training cases). All patients were treated nonoperatively for single-level symptomatic disc degeneration for at least 6 months prior to surgery. Perioperative data were collected. Clinical outcome data were collected prospectively, as approved by the Food and Drug Administration, through 24-month follow-up. Primary outcome measures used were the Oswestry Disability Index, visual analogue scales assessing pain, patient satisfaction, and reoperations. Success was defined to be at least 15-point improvements in Oswestry Disability Index scores, no reoperation, and no major adverse events. Radiographical measures included range of motion, disc space height, and assessment for device migration, subsidence, and fusion at the TDR level. There were no significant differences between the groups when comparing operative time, blood loss, or length of hospital stay. Both groups improved significantly on Oswestry Disability Index and visual analogue scale scores (P < 0.01) with no differences between the groups. Success rates were similar (68.1% investigational vs. 67.4% control). At 24-month follow-up, 94.1% of the investigational group and 91.9% of controls were satisfied with outcome. Reoperation was performed in 10.3% of the investigational group and 8.4% of the control group. This prospective, randomized, controlled study comparing 2 TDRs, the first to the authors' knowledge, found the devices produced very similar clinical outcomes. Both groups improved significantly by 6 weeks postoperatively and remained improved throughout follow-up with a high patient satisfaction rate.

Please choose payment method:






(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 052225351

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 24718066

DOI: 10.1097/brs.0000000000000319


Related references

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. Spine Journal 9(5): 374-386, 2009

Prospective, randomized, multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study of the ProDisc-L total disc replacement compared with circumferential arthrodesis for the treatment of two-level lumbar degenerative disc disease: results at twenty-four months. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. American Volume 93(8): 705-715, 2011

A prospective, randomized, multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemptions study of lumbar total disc replacement with the CHARITE artificial disc versus lumbar fusion: part I: evaluation of clinical outcomes. Spine 30(14): 1565, 2005

A Prospective, Randomized, Multicenter Food and Drug Administration Investigational Device Exemptions Study of Lumbar Total Disc Replacement With the CHARIT Artificial Disc Versus Lumbar Fusion: Part 1: Evaluation of Clinical Outcomes. Yearbook of Orthopedics 2006: 258-259, 2006

Results of the prospective, randomized, controlled multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study of the ProDisc-C total disc replacement versus anterior discectomy and fusion for the treatment of 1-level symptomatic cervical disc disease. Spine Journal 9(4): 275-286, 2009

Five-Year Follow-Up of a Prospective, Randomized Trial Comparing Two Lumbar Total Disc Replacements. Spine 41(1): 3-8, 2016

Prospective, Randomized, Multicenter Food and Drug Administration Investigational Device Exemption Study of the ProDisc-L Total Disc Replacement Compared with Circumferential Arthrodesis for the Treatment of Two-Level Lumbar Degenerative Disc Disease Res. 2011

Two-level total disc replacement with Mobi-C cervical artificial disc versus anterior discectomy and fusion: a prospective, randomized, controlled multicenter clinical trial with 4-year follow-up results. Journal of Neurosurgery. Spine 22(1): 15-25, 2015

A prospective, randomized, multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study of lumbar total disc replacement with the CHARITE artificial disc versus lumbar fusion: part II: evaluation of radiographic outcomes and correlation of surgical technique accuracy with clinical outcomes. Spine 30(14): 1576, 2005

Complications of Lumbar Artificial Disc Replacement Compared to Fusion: Results From the Prospective, Randomized, Multicenter US Food and Drug Administration Investigational Device Exemption Study of the Charité Artificial Disc. Sas Journal 1(1): 20-27, 2007

Cervical total disc replacement using a novel compressible prosthesis: Results from a prospective Food and Drug Administration-regulated feasibility study with 24-month follow-up. International Journal of Spine Surgery 6: 71-77, 2012

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. Spine 32(11): 1155-62; Discussion 1163, 2007

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. Yearbook of Orthopedics 2008: 231-232, 2008

Five-year results of the prospective, randomized, multicenter, Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study of the ProDisc-L total disc replacement versus circumferential arthrodesis for the treatment of single-level degenerative disc disease. Journal of Neurosurgery. Spine 17(6): 493-501, 2012

Clinical outcomes of BRYAN cervical disc arthroplasty: a prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter trial with 24-month follow-up. Journal of Spinal Disorders and Techniques 20(7): 481-491, 2007