Lumbar disc arthroplasty with Maverick disc versus stand-alone interbody fusion: a prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter investigational device exemption trial
- PMID: 21415812
- DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e318217668f
Lumbar disc arthroplasty with Maverick disc versus stand-alone interbody fusion: a prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter investigational device exemption trial
Abstract
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.
Similar articles
-
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 J. 2009 May;9(5):374-86. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2008.08.007. Epub 2008 Sep 19. Spine J. 2009. PMID: 18805066 Clinical Trial.
-
Prospective, randomized trial of metal-on-metal artificial lumbar disc replacement: initial results for treatment of discogenic pain.Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008 Jan 15;33(2):123-31. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31816043af. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008. PMID: 18197095 Clinical Trial.
-
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.J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011 Apr 20;93(8):705-15. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.I.00680. Epub 2011 Mar 11. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011. PMID: 21398574 Clinical Trial.
-
[Lumbar disc arthroplasty. Established technique or experimental procedure?].Orthopade. 2005 Aug;34(8):801-13. doi: 10.1007/s00132-005-0834-5. Orthopade. 2005. PMID: 16028049 Review. German.
-
Clinical outcome of stand-alone ALIF compared to posterior instrumentation for degenerative disc disease: A pilot study and a literature review.Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2015 Jun;133:64-9. doi: 10.1016/j.clineuro.2015.03.008. Epub 2015 Mar 16. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2015. PMID: 25855474 Review.
Cited by
-
An 11-year minimum follow-up of the Charite III lumbar disc replacement for the treatment of symptomatic degenerative disc disease.Eur Spine J. 2015 Sep;24(9):2056-64. doi: 10.1007/s00586-015-3939-5. Epub 2015 Apr 21. Eur Spine J. 2015. PMID: 25895882
-
Which design and biomaterial factors affect clinical wear performance of total disc replacements? A systematic review.Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014 Dec;472(12):3759-69. doi: 10.1007/s11999-014-3751-2. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014. PMID: 25002211 Free PMC article.
-
[Operative options for failed back surgery syndrome].Orthopade. 2016 Sep;45(9):732-7. doi: 10.1007/s00132-016-3309-y. Orthopade. 2016. PMID: 27541352 Review. German.
-
The role of stem cell therapies in degenerative lumbar spine disease: a review.Neurosurg Rev. 2015 Jul;38(3):429-45. doi: 10.1007/s10143-015-0621-7. Epub 2015 Mar 7. Neurosurg Rev. 2015. PMID: 25749802 Review.
-
Validation of Pre-operative Templating for Total Disc Replacement Surgery.Int J Spine Surg. 2019 Feb 22;13(1):84-91. doi: 10.14444/6011. eCollection 2019 Jan. Int J Spine Surg. 2019. PMID: 30805290 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Research Materials