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, Apr 16, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
222 Views
  • [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
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE. The goals of this article are to review the indications for use, the materials, and the designs of hardware more commonly used in the cervical spine; to discuss alternatives for each of the different types of hardware; to review normal postoperative imaging findings; to describe the appropriateness of different imaging modalities for postoperative evaluation; and to illustrate examples of hardware complications. This article will also review vertebral body fracture fixation. CONCLUSION. Stabilization and fusion of the spine with intervertebral disk replacement, artificial ligaments, spinous process distraction devices, plate-and-rod systems, dynamic posterior fusion devices, and implants composed of new types of material are increasingly more common in the contemporary surgical practice. These spinal hardware devices will be seen more often in radiology practice. Successful postoperative radiologic evaluation of spinal hardware necessitates an understanding of the fundamental design of the hardware, the physiologic objective of the hardware, normal and abnormal postoperative imaging appearances, and complications unique to the hardware.
    American Journal of Roentgenology 08/2014; 203(2):394-405. DOI:10.2214/AJR.13.12216 · 2.74 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The aim of total disc replacement (TDR) is to restore and maintain closer-to-physiology motion. Therefore, the factors that influence postoperative intervertebral motion have to be controlled. Factors such as disc height (DH), postoperative segmental lordosis (SL), implant design and positioning are still recognized to be influent. Otherwise, range of motion (ROM) distribution, between flexion and extension, appear to be influenced by obtaining parallel bearing surfaces, which depends on prosthesis endplate lordotic angulation. To assess in vivo the correlation between an intraoperative parameter (intraoperative segmental lordosis: ISL) and a postoperative parameter (postoperative segmental lordosis: PSL). To determine the advantage of ISL measurement on the improvement of the prosthetic endplate lordotic angulation choice. Radiological comparison between intraoperative and postoperative segmental parameters. Fifty-seven patients who received a TDR at one level, L4–L5 or L5–S1, with different prosthetic endplate lordotic angulations (0°, 5°, and 10°). Twenty-one consecutive patients underwent intraoperative measurement (ISL) on a lateral view, with a spacer at the mid-vertebral bony endplates (Group 1). ISL was correlated using a linear correlation test with PSL. Group 1 postoperative prosthesis endplate lordosis (PEL: angle between the bearing surfaces) were compared to those of 46 patients without intraoperative measurement (Group 2). The mean ISL and PSL angles were 12.2° (7–21°) and 13.9° (8–23°), respectively. We observed a strong linear correlation between ISL and PSL (r = 0.78, P < 0.006). In Group 1, PEL varied between −1° and 11°, and between −3.7° and 17.8° in Group 2. For 80% of the patients in Group 1, the PEL was less than 5°, versus 33% of the patients in Group 2. Only prostheses with PEL less than 5° had a preserved extension curve in ROM distribution (+3°). Intraoperative measurement of ISL has emerged as a key factor in predicting PSL in TDR. The percentage of parallel bearing surfaces was increased by a prosthesis endplate lordotic angulation choice guided by ISL measurement. This study confirmed the advantage of choosing the adequate lordotic angulation of the prosthesis endplate to restore a physiological motion distribution between flexion and extension.
    Orthopaedics & Traumatology Surgery & Research 01/2015; DOI:10.1016/j.otsr.2014.11.008 · 1.17 Impact Factor