These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: ProDisc-C and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion as surgical treatment for single-level cervical symptomatic degenerative disc disease: five-year results of a Food and Drug Administration study.
    Author: Zigler JE, Delamarter R, Murrey D, Spivak J, Janssen M.
    Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2013 Feb 01; 38(3):203-9. PubMed ID: 23080427.
    Abstract:
    STUDY DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. OBJECTIVE: Analyze the clinical outcomes at 5 years comparing cervical total disc replacement (TDR) with ProDisc-C (Synthes Spine USA Products; LLC, West Chester, PA) with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Previous reports of 2- and 4-year results have shown that ProDisc-C, a TDR for surgical treatment of patients experiencing single-level symptomatic cervical disc disease between C3 and C7, is safe and effective. METHODS: Two hundred nine patients (103 ProDisc-C and 106 ACDF) from 13 sites were randomized and treated. Results including neck disability index, visual analog scale (VAS) neck and arm pain, Short Form-36 (SF-36), neurological examination, device success, adverse event occurrence, and VAS patient satisfaction were analyzed. RESULTS: Demographics were similar between the 2 patient groups (ProDisc-C: 42.1 ± 8.4 yr, 44.7% males; ACDF: 43.5 ± 7.1 yr, 46.2% males). Rates of follow-up at 2 years were 98.1% ProDisc-C and 94.8% ACDF, and at 5 years 72.7% ProDisc-C and 63.5% ACDF. For all clinical outcomes for both groups, there was a statistically and clinically significant improvement at 2 and 5 years compared with baseline. At 5 years, ProDisc-C patients had statistically significantly less neck pain intensity and frequency. Both groups scored high VAS satisfaction scores at 5 years, with ProDisc-C 86.56 and ACDF 82.74. There were no reports of device failures or implant migration with ProDisc-C. The ProDisc-C patients maintained motion at their index level. At 5 years, the ProDisc-C patients had a statistically significantly lower rate of reoperation compared with ACDF patients (2.9% vs. 11.3%). CONCLUSION: Five-year results show that TDR with ProDisc-C is a safe and effective treatment of single-level symptomatic cervical disc disease. Clinical outcomes were comparable with ACDF. ProDisc-C patients maintained motion at the index level and had significantly less neck pain intensity and frequency as well as a lower probability of secondary surgery.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]