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

Jack Zigler, Rick Delamarter, Jeffrey M. Spivak, Raymond J. Linovitz, Guy O. Danielson, Thomas T. Haider, Frank Cammisa, Jim Zuchermann, Richard Balderston, Scott Kitchel, Kevin Foley, Robert Watkins, David Bradford, James Yue, Hansen Yuan, Harry Herkowitz, Doug Geiger, John Bendo, Timothy Peppers, Barton SachsFederico Girardi, Michael Kropf, Jeff Goldstein

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

367 Scopus citations

Abstract

STUDY DESIGN. A prospective, randomized, multicenter, Food and Drug Administration-regulated Investigational Device Exemption clinical trial. OBJECTIVE. To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the ProDisc®-L (Synthes Spine, West Chester, PA) lumbar total disc replacement compared to circumferential spinal fusion for the treatment of discogenic pain at 1 vertebral level between L3 and S1. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA. As part of the Investigational Device Exemption clinical trial, favorable single center results of lumbar total disc replacement with the ProDisc®-L have been reported previously. METHODS. Two hundred eighty-six (286) patients were treated on protocol. Patients were evaluated before and after surgery, at 6 weeks, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. Evaluation at each visit included patient self-assessments, physical and neurologic examinations, and radiographic evaluation. RESULTS. Safety of ProDisc®-L implantation was demonstrated with 0% major complications. At 24 months, 91.8% of investigational and 84.5% of control patients reported improvement in the Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI]) from preoperative levels, and 77.2% of investigational and 64.8% of control patients met the ≥15% Oswestry Disability Index improvement criteria. Overall neurologic success in the investigational group was superior to the control group (91.2% investigational and 81.4% control; P = 0.0341). At 6 weeks and 3 months follow-up time points, the ProDisc®-L patients recorded SF-36 Health Survey scores significantly higher than the control group (P = 0.018, P = 0.0036, respectively). The visual analog scale pain assessment showed statistically significant improvement from preoperative levels regardless of treatment (P < 0.0001). Visual analog scale patient satisfaction at 24 months showed a statistically significant difference favoring investigational patients over the control group (P = 0.015). Radiographic range of motion was maintained within a normal functional range in 93.7% of investigational patients and averaged 7.7°. CONCLUSIONS. ProDisc®-L has been found to be safe and efficacious. In properly chosen patients, ProDisc®-L has been shown to be superior to circumferential fusion by multiple clinical criteria.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1155-1162
Number of pages8
JournalSpine
Volume32
Issue number11
DOIs
StatePublished - May 2007
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • Artificial disc
  • Circumferential fusion
  • Investigational Device Exemption clinical trial/
  • Lumbar spine
  • ProDisc®-L
  • Randomized study
  • Total disc replacement

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of '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'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this