Prospective, Randomized Comparison of Cervical Total Disk Replacement Versus Anterior Cervical Fusion: Results at 48 Months Follow-up.

Journal: Journal Of Spinal Disorders & Techniques
Published:
Abstract

Methods: This was a prospective, randomized, controlled multicenter trial. Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare clinical outcomes at 4-year follow-up of patients receiving cervical total disk replacement (TDR) with those receiving anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF).

Background: ACDF has been the traditional treatment for symptomatic disk degeneration. Several studies found single-level TDR to be as safe and effective as ACDF at ≥2 years follow-up.

Methods: Patients from 23 centers were randomized in a 2:1 ratio with 164 receiving the investigational device (Mobi-C Cervical Disc Prosthesis) and 81 receiving ACDF using an anterior plate and allograft. Patients were evaluated preoperatively and 6 weeks, 3, 6, 12, 18, 24, 36, and 48 months postoperatively. Outcome assessments included a composite success score, Neck Disability Index, visual analog scales assessing neck and arm pain, patient satisfaction, major complications, subsequent surgery, segmental range of motion, and adjacent-segment degeneration.

Results: The composite success rate was similar in the 2 groups at 48-month follow-up. Mean Neck Disability Index, visual analog scale, and SF-12 scores were significantly improved in early follow-up in both groups with improvements maintained throughout 48 months. On some measures, TDR had significantly greater improvement during early follow-up. At no follow-up were TDR scores significantly worse than ACDF scores. Subsequent surgery rate was significantly higher for ACDF compared with TDR (9.9% vs. 3.0%, P<0.05). Range of motion was maintained with TDR having a mean baseline value of 8 degrees compared with 10 degrees at 48 months. The incidence of adjacent-segment degeneration was significantly higher with ACDF at inferior and superior segments compared with TDR (inferior: 50% vs. 30%, P<0.025; superior: 53% vs. 34%, P<0.025).

Conclusions: Significant improvements were observed in pain and function. TDR patients maintained motion and had significantly lower rates of reoperation and adjacent-segment degeneration compared with ACDF. This study supports the safety and efficacy of TDR in appropriately selected patients.

Authors
Michael Hisey, Hyun Bae, Reginald Davis, Steven Gaede, Greg Hoffman, Kee Kim, Pierce Nunley, Daniel Peterson, Ralph Rashbaum, John Stokes, Donna Ohnmeiss