Article

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

Texas Back Institute, 6020 West Parker Road, Suite 200, Plano, TX 75093, USA.
The spine journal: official journal of the North American Spine Society (Impact Factor: 2.8). 09/2009; 9(5):374-86. DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2008.08.007
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The CHARITE artificial disc, a lumbar spinal arthroplasty device, was approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration in 2004 based on two-year safety and effectiveness data from a multicenter, prospective, randomized investigational device exemption (IDE) study. No long-term, randomized, prospective study on the CHARITE disc or any other artificial disc has been published to date.
The purpose of this study was to compare the safety and effectiveness at the five-year follow-up time point of lumbar total disc replacement using the CHARITE artificial disc (DePuy Spine, Raynham, MA) with that of anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) with BAK cages and iliac crest autograft, for the treatment of single-level degenerative disc disease from L4 to S1, unresponsive to nonoperative treatment.
Randomized controlled trial-five-year follow-up.
Ninety CHARITE patients and 43 BAK patients.
Self-reported measures: visual analog scale (VAS); validated Oswestry disability index (ODI version 1.0); Short-Form 36 Questionnaire, and patient satisfaction. Physiologic measures: radiographic range of motion, disc height, and segmental translation. Functional measures: work status.
Of the 375 subjects enrolled in the CHARITE IDE trial, 277 were eligible for the five-year study and 160 patients thereof completed the five-year follow-up. The completers included 133 randomized patients. Overall success was defined as improvement> or =15 pts in ODI vs. baseline, no device failure, absence of major complications, and maintenance or improvement of neurological status. Additional clinical outcomes included an ODI questionnaire as well as VAS, SF-36, and patient satisfaction surveys. Work status was tracked for all patients. Safety assessments included occurrence and severity of adverse events and device failures. Radiographic analyses such as index- and adjacent-level range of motion, segmental translation, disc height, and longitudinal ossification were also carried out.
Overall success was 57.8% in the CHARITE group vs. 51.2% in the BAK group (Blackwelder's test: p=0.0359, Delta=0.10). In addition, mean changes from baseline for ODI (CHARITE: -24.0 pts vs. BAK: -27.5 pts), VAS pain scores (CHARITE: -38.7 vs. BAK: -40.0), and SF-36 questionnaires (SF-36 Physical Component Scores [PCS]: CHARITE: 12.6 pts vs. BAK: 12.3 pts) were similar across groups. In patient satisfaction surveys, 78% of CHARITE patients were satisfied vs. 72% of BAK patients. A total of 65.6% patients in the CHARITE group vs. 46.5% patients in the BAK group were employed full-time. This difference was statistically significant (p=0.0403). Long-term disability was recorded for 8.0% of CHARITE patients and 20.9% of BAK patients, a difference that was also statistically significant (p=0.0441). Additional index-level surgery was performed in 7.7% of CHARITE patients and 16.3% of BAK patients. Radiographic findings included operative and adjacent-level range of motion (ROM), intervertebral disc height and segmental translation. At the five-year follow-up, the mean ROM at the index level was 6.0 degrees for CHARITE patients and 1.0 degrees for BAK patients. Changes in disc height were also similar for both CHARITE and BAK patients (0.7 mm for both groups, p=0.9827). Segmental translation was 0.4 and 0.8mm in patients implanted with CHARITE at L4-L5 vs. L5-S1, respectively, and 0.1mm in BAK patients.
The results of this five-year, prospective, randomized multicenter study are consistent with the two-year reports of noninferiority of CHARITE artificial disc vs. ALIF with BAK and iliac crest autograft. No statistical differences were found in clinical outcomes between groups. In addition, CHARITE patients reached a statistically greater rate of part- and full-time employment and a statistically lower rate of long-term disability, compared with BAK patients. Radiographically, the ROMs at index- and adjacent levels were not statistically different from those observed at two-years postsurgery.

Full-text

Available from: Fred H Geisler, May 25, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
234 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: As with any surgery, care should be taken to determine patient selection criteria for lumbar TDR based on safety and optimizing outcome. These goals may initially be addressed by analyzing biomechanical implant function and early clinical experience, ongoing evaluation is needed to refine indications. The purpose of this work was to synthesize information published on general indications for lumbar TDR. A secondary objective was to determine if indications vary for different TDR designs. A comprehensive literature search was conducted to identify lumbar TDR articles. Articles were reviewed and patient selection criteria and indications were synthesized. With respect to safety, there was good agreement in the literature to exclude patients with osteopenia/osteoporosis or fracture. Risk of injury to vascular structures due to the anterior approach was often addressed by excluding patients with previous abdominal surgery in the area of disc pathology or increased age. The literature was very consistent on the primary indication for TDR being painful disc degeneration unresponsive to at least 6 months of nonoperative care. Literature investigating the impact of previous spine surgery was mixed; however, prior surgery was not necessarily a contra-indication, provided the patient otherwise met selection criteria. The literature was mixed on setting a minimum preoperative disc height as a selection criterion. There were no publications investigating whether some patients are better/worse candidates for specific TDR designs. Based on the literature a proposal for patient selection criteria is offered. Several TDR indications and contra-indications are widely accepted. No literature addresses particular TDR design being preferable for some patients. As with any spine surgery, ongoing evaluation of TDR outcomes will likely lead to more detailed general and device design specific indications.
    01/2014; 8:12-12. DOI:10.14444/1012
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Study Design. A prospective clinical data analysis. Objective. To determine the long-term clinical success of 2-level total disc replacement (TDR) in patients with degenerative disc disease. Summary of Background Data. Early successful clinical results of 2-level TDR have been reported. Few studies exist that have described this procedure's durability in the long term. Methods. Fifteen patients underwent 2-level lumbar TDR with the ProDisc-L as part of a randomized trial, 13 of whom were available for follow-up. The patients were assessed preoperatively and at 2 years, 5 years, and more than 9 years postoperatively using visual Oswestry Disability Index. At the last follow-up visit, 2 additional questions were asked: satisfaction with surgery and willingness to undergo the same treatment. Finally, clinical success was assessed using a previously described definition. Results. Mean follow-up time was 9.6 years (range, 9.2–10.3 yr). Postoperatively there was a significant improvement in Oswestry Disability Index score from baseline (70.0 vs. 15.7 at 2 yr, P = 0.002) that remained unchanged during the period of follow-up (19.8 at 5 yr, P = 0.003 and 12.9 at 9–10 yr, P = 0.002). Ninety-two percent of patients were “satisfied” or “somewhat satisfied” with treatment and the same number would undergo treatment again. Eighty-five percent of patients achieved clinical success. Conclusion. This prospective study demonstrates the durable clinical success of 2-level lumbar TDR as assessed at more than 9 years postoperatively. Level of Evidence: 4
    Spine 05/2014; 39(11):906-910. DOI:10.1097/BRS.0000000000000148 · 2.45 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The primary goal of this Policy Statement is to educate patients, physicians, medical providers, reviewers, adjustors, case managers, insurers, and all others involved or affected by insurance coverage decisions regarding lumbar disc replacement surgery. This Policy Statement was developed by a panel of physicians selected by the Board of Directors of ISASS for their expertise and experience with lumbar TDR. The panel's recommendation was entirely based on the best evidence-based scientific research available regarding the safety and effectiveness of lumbar TDR.
    03/2015; 9:7. DOI:10.14444/2007