Francine W. Schranck’s research while affiliated with University of Missouri - St. Louis and other places

INTRODUCTION: We report utility of magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) in identifying the intervertebral disc (IVD) as a pain generator, describe the contemporary pathophysiology underlying biochemical and structural components of discogenic low back pain (DLBP), and exhibit therapeutic responses to spinal manipulation. CLINICAL FEATURES: A 29-year old man presented with uncomplicated low back pain (LBP). The non-specific presentation and clinical exam findings were consistent with non-specific LBP with the IVD as likely pain generator. INTERVENTION AND OUTCOMES: Conventional magnetic resonance imaging showed findings of IVD degeneration including Modic Type 1 changes consistent with a diagnosis of DLBP. MRS was utilized for structural and biochemical analysis of the IVDs. Altered spectral features confirmed a DLBP diagnosis. The patient underwent 12 Cox Flexion Distraction treatments at a chiropractic teaching clinic. Follow-up MRS revealed improved IVD spectral features including decreased biochemical pain markers and increased glycoprotein biosynthesis suggesting improved IVD structural integrity. CONCLUSION: We report the first utilization of MRS to quantify structural integrity and biochemical pain profile of the IVD in a conservatively managed DLBP patient. Findings of this case suggest spinal manipulative therapy in DLBP management may improve the structural integrity of IVDs and alter pain biochemistry.

The full text of this preprint has been withdrawn by the authors as it was submitted and made public without the full consent of all the authors. Therefore, the authors do not wish this work to be cited as a reference. Questions should be directed to the corresponding author.

Objective: The authors sought to assess the impact of heterotopic ossification (HO) on clinical outcomes and angular range of motion (ROM) after cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) performed with the Prestige LP Cervical Disc (Prestige LP disc) at 2 levels. Methods: HO was assessed and graded from 0 to IV for increasing severity on lateral neutral radiographs at each visit in 209 patients who underwent implantation of Prestige LP discs at 2 cervical levels in a clinical trial with extended 10-year follow-up. ROM was compared by using HO grade, and clinical outcomes were compared between HO subgroups (grade 0-II vs III/IV) based on HO severity at 2 and 10 years after surgery. Results: The grade III/IV HO incidence at either or both index levels was 24.2% (48/198) at 2 years and 39.0% (57/146) at 10 years. No statistical difference was found in overall success; neurological success; or Neck Disability Index (NDI), neck pain, arm pain, or SF-36 Physical Component Summary (PCS) scores between the HO subgroups (grade 0-II vs III/IV) at either 2 or 10 years. The cumulative rate of possible implant-related adverse events (AEs) was higher in patients having grade III/IV HO at 2 years (56.3%) and 10 years (47.8%) compared with those having grade 0-II HO at 2 years (24.4%) and 10 years (17.9%), specifically in 2 subcategories: spinal events and HOs reported by the investigators. No statistical difference was found between the HO subgroups in possible implant-related serious AEs or secondary surgeries at the index or adjacent levels. The average angular ROMs at index levels were lower in subjects with higher-grade HO at 2 and 10 years. The average ROMs at the superior level were 8.8°, 6.6°, 3.2°, and 0.3°, respectively, for the HO grade 0/I, II, III, and IV groups at 10 years, and 7.9°, 6.2°, 3.7°, and 0.6°, respectively, at the inferior level. Conclusions: Radiographically severe (grade III or IV) HO after CDA with the Prestige LP disc at 2 levels did not significantly affect efficacy or safety outcomes (severe AEs or secondary surgeries). However, severe HO, particularly grade IV HO, significantly limited ROM, as expected.

Background: Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) have been used to treat degenerative disc disease at single as well as multiple cervical levels. This study compares the safety and efficacy of 1-level versus 2-level CDA and ACDF. Methods: In total, 545 and 397 patients with degenerative disc disease were studied in 1-level and 2-level Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved clinical trials, respectively: CDA (n = 280 and 209), ACDF (n = 265 and 188). Data from these studies were used to compare 1- versus 2-level procedures: the propensity score method was used to adjust for potential confounding effects, and adjusted mean outcome safety and efficacy scores at 2 and 7 years postsurgery were compared between 1-level and 2-level procedures within treatment type. Results: One-level and 2-level procedures had similar rates of improvement in overall success and patient-reported outcomes scores for both CDA and ACDF. There were no statistical differences in rates of implant-related adverse events (AEs) or serious implant-related AEs between 1-level and 2-level CDA. The 7-year rate of implant-related AEs was higher for 2-level than 1-level ACDF (27.7% vs 18.9%, P ≤ .036), though the rates of serious implant-related AEs between ACDF groups did not differ significantly. Secondary surgery rates were not statistically different between 1-level and 2-level procedures (CDA or ACDF) at the index or adjacent levels at 2 or 7 years. Grade IV heterotopic ossification at 7 years was reported in 4.6% of 1-level CDA patients and 8.6%/7.3% at the superior/inferior levels, respectively, of 2-level CDA patients. Conclusions: One- and 2-level CDA appear equally safe and effective in the treatment of cervical degenerative disc disease. Two-level ACDF appears to be as effective as 1-level ACDF but with a higher rate of some AEs at long-term follow-up. Level of evidence: 2. Clinical trials: clinicaltrials.gov: NCT00667459, NCT00642876, and NCT00637156.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT Interspinous process distraction (IPD) devices aim to alleviate back and leg pain by limiting extension and unloading the 3-joint complex at the affected lumbar level. IPDs may offer a treatment option for painful degenerative disc disease (DDD) that is not yet indicated for fusion or disc replacement. PURPOSE To compare the safety and effectiveness of IPD and nonoperative treatment after 2 years for the treatment of moderate lumbar DDD. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING A prospective, randomized, controlled FDA IDE clinical trial at 23 US centers (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00456378). PATIENT SAMPLE A total of 278 patients with moderate low back pain for less than 1 year and radiographic evidence of single-level DDD between L2 and L5 who failed at least 6 weeks but less than 6 months of conservative management were randomized and treated with investigational IPD (n=181) or control nonoperative treatment (n=97). OUTCOME MEASURES The primary endpoint was Overall Success, a composite variable that included: 1) Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score improvement of ≥ 15 points; and 2) no serious adverse event (AE) caused by the implant or by both the implant and surgical procedure (IPD) or caused by the nonoperative treatment (control); and 3) no secondary surgery (IPD) or treatment surgery (control) at the involved level. Additional safety and effectiveness endpoints included back and leg pain numerical (0-20) rating scales, SF-36 PCS/MCS, AEs and secondary surgeries. METHODS Investigational treatment consisted of the IPD implantation (without decompression) and nonoperative treatments, as necessary. Control treatment consisted of information/ education on low back pain, medication, physical therapy, and epidural and/or facet joint steroidal injections. Clinical and radiographic assessments were performed preoperatively, intra-operatively, and postoperatively up to 2 years. Statistical analyses used Bayesian methods with non-informative priors. Last observation was carried forward (LOCF) for patients lost to follow-up including patients receiving surgery (control crossovers) or additional surgery (IPD investigational) at the involved level. RESULTS Baseline demographic characteristics and outcomes scores were not statistically different between the two groups, except back pain (16.8 for investigational vs 16.1 for control, p=0.033). The IPD rate of Overall Success at 24-months was statistically superior to control (observed rate of 63.0% vs 13.4%, respectively; posterior probability of superiority (pps) > 99.9%). The improvement in outcomes for IPD was statistically superior to control (pps > 99.9%) for: ODI (26.4 vs 1.1), back pain (8.4 vs 1.2), leg pain (4.9 vs -1.1, PCS (12.6 vs.1.4), and MCS (4.4 vs -0.8). Spinous process bony erosion increased slowly to 33.7% (61/181) of patients but was not related to clinical outcomes. Treatment-related serious AEs in the control group were associated with increasing low back pain. Fifteen (8.3%) IPD and 34 (35.1%) control patients experienced a treatment-related serious AE. Twenty (11.0%) IPD patients had secondary surgery and 10 (10.3%) control patients had treatment surgery at the index level. After 6 months of nonoperative treatment, control patients had the option to crossover to IPD: 57 (58.8%) control patients had crossed over by 24 months. CONCLUSIONS These analyses support the superiority of this IPD over conservative care for moderate back pain in appropriately selected patients. FDA DEVICE/DRUG STATUS DIAM™ Spinal Stabilization System (Investigational/Not approved)

Objective: The authors assessed the 10-year clinical safety and effectiveness of cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) to treat degenerative cervical spine disease at 2 adjacent levels compared to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). Methods: A prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter FDA-approved clinical trial was conducted comparing the low-profile titanium ceramic composite-based Prestige LP Cervical Disc (n = 209) at two levels with ACDF (n = 188). Ten-year follow-up data from a postapproval study were available on 148 CDA and 118 ACDF patients and are reported here. Clinical and radiographic evaluations were completed preoperatively, intraoperatively, and at regular postoperative follow-up intervals for up to 10 years. The primary endpoint was overall success, a composite variable that included key safety and efficacy considerations. Ten-year follow-up rates were 86.0% for CDA and 84.9% for ACDF. Results: From 2 to 10 years, CDA demonstrated statistical superiority over ACDF for overall success, with rates at 10 years of 80.4% versus 62.2%, respectively (posterior probability of superiority [PPS] = 99.9%). Neck Disability Index (NDI) success was also superior, with rates at 10 years of 88.4% versus 76.5% (PPS = 99.5%), as was neurological success (92.6% vs 86.1%; PPS = 95.6%). Improvements from preoperative results in NDI and neck pain scores were consistently statistically superior for CDA compared to ACDF. All other study effectiveness measures were at least noninferior for CDA compared to ACDF through the 10-year follow-up period, including disc height. Mean angular ranges of motion at treated levels were maintained in the CDA group for up to 10 years. The rates of grade IV heterotopic ossification (HO) at the superior and inferior levels were 8.2% and 10.3%, respectively. The rate of severe HO (grade III or IV) did not increase significantly from 7 years (42.4%) to 10 years (39.0%). The CDA group had fewer serious (grade 3-4) implant-related or implant/surgical procedure-related adverse events (3.8% vs 8.1%; posterior mean 95% Bayesian credible interval [BCI] of the log hazard ratio [LHR] -0.92 [-1.88, -0.01]). The CDA group also had statistically fewer secondary surgical procedures at the index levels (4.7%) than the ACDF group (17.6%) (LHR [95% BCI] -1.39 [-2.15, -0.61]) as well as at adjacent levels (9.0% vs 17.9%). Conclusions: The Prestige LP Cervical Disc, implanted at two adjacent levels, maintains improved clinical outcomes and segmental motion 10 years after surgery and is a safe and effective alternative to fusion.Clinical trial registration no.: NCT00637156 (clinicaltrials.gov).

OBJECTIVE Food and Drug Administration–approved investigational device exemption (IDE) studies have provided level I evidence supporting cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) as a safe and effective alternative to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). Long-term CDA outcomes continue to be evaluated. Here, the authors present outcomes at 10 years postoperatively for the single-level CDA arm of an IDE study (postapproval study). METHODS The primary endpoint was overall success, a composite variable composed of five criteria: 1) Neck Disability Index score improvement ≥ 15 points; 2) maintenance or improvement in neurological status; 3) no decline in anterior or posterior functional spinal unit (FSU) height of more than 2 mm compared to 6 weeks postoperatively; 4) no serious adverse event (AE) caused by the implant or the implant and the surgical procedure; and 5) no additional surgery classified as a failure. Additional safety and effectiveness measures included numeric rating scales for neck pain and arm pain, SF-36 quality-of-life physical and mental components, patient satisfaction, range of motion, and AEs. RESULTS From the reported assessments at 7 years postoperatively to the 10-year postoperative follow-up, the scores for all patient-reported outcomes, rate of overall success (without FSU), and proportion of patients at least maintaining their neurological function remained stable for the CDA group. Nine patients had secondary surgery at the index level, increasing the secondary surgery cumulative rate from 6.6% to 10.3%. In that same time frame, four patients experienced a serious implant or implant/surgical procedure–related AE, for a 10-year cumulative rate of 7.8%. Seven patients had any second surgery at adjacent levels, for a 10-year cumulative rate of 13.8%. Average angular motion at both the index and adjacent levels was well maintained without creating hypermobility. Class IV heterotopic ossification increased from 1.2% at 2 years to 4.6% at 7 years and 9.0% at 10 years. Patient satisfaction was > 90% at 10 years. CONCLUSIONS CDA remained safe and effective out to 10 years postoperatively, with results comparable to 7-year outcomes and with high patient satisfaction. Clinical trial registration no.: NCT00667459 (clinicaltrials.gov)

OBJECTIVE Despite evidence of its safety and effectiveness, the use of lumbar disc arthroplasty has been slow to expand due in part to concerns about late complications and the risks of revision surgery associated with early devices. More recently, FDA approval of newer devices and improving reimbursements have reversed this trend in the United States. Additional long-term data on lumbar disc arthroplasty are still needed. This study reports the 5-year results of the FDA investigational device exemption clinical trial of the Medtronic Spinal and Biologics’ Maverick total disc replacement. METHODS Patients with single-level degenerative disc disease from L4 to S1 were randomized 2:1 at 31 investigational sites. In the period from April 2003 to August 2004, 405 patients received the investigational device and 172 patients underwent the control procedure of anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Outcome measures included the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), numeric rating scales (NRSs) for back and leg pain, the SF-36, disc height, interbody motion, heterotopic ossification (investigational device), adverse events (AEs), additional surgeries, and neurological status. Treatment was considered an overall success when all of the following criteria were met: 1) ODI score improvement ≥ 15 points over the preoperative score; 2) maintenance or improvement in neurological status compared with preoperatively; 3) disc height success, that is, no more than a 2-mm reduction in anterior or posterior height; 4) no serious AEs caused by the implant or by the implant and the surgical procedure; and 5) no additional surgery classified as a failure. RESULTS Compared to that in the control group, improvement in the investigational group was statistically greater according to the ODI and SF-36 Physical Component Summary (PCS) at 1, 2, and 5 years; the NRS for back pain at 1 and 2 years; and the NRS for leg pain at 1 year. The rates of heterotopic ossification increased over time: 1.0% (4/382) at 1 year, 2.6% (9/345) at 2 years, and 5.9% (11/187) at 5 years. Investigational patients had fewer device-related AEs and serious device-related AEs than the control patients at both 2 and 5 years postoperatively. Noninferiority of the composite measure overall success was demonstrated at all follow-up intervals; superiority was demonstrated at 1 and 2 years. CONCLUSIONS Lumbar disc arthroplasty is a safe and effective treatment for single-level lumbar degenerative disc disease, resulting in improved physical function and reduced pain up to 5 years after surgery. Clinical trial registration no.: NCT00635843 (clinicaltrials.gov)

Purpose The goal of this study was to refine clinical MRS to optimize performance and then determine whether MRS-derived biomarkers reliably identify painful discs, quantify degeneration severity, and forecast surgical outcomes for chronic low back pain (CLBP) patients. Methods We performed an observational diagnostic development and accuracy study. Six hundred and twenty-three (623) discs in 139 patients were scanned using MRS, with 275 discs also receiving provocative discography (PD). MRS data were used to quantify spectral features related to disc structure (collagen and proteoglycan) and acidity (lactate, alanine, propionate). Ratios of acidity to structure were used to calculate pain potential. MRS-SCOREs were compared to PD and Pfirrmann grade. Clinical utility was judged by evaluating surgical success for 75 of the subjects who underwent lumbar surgery. Results Two hundred and six (206) discs had both a successful MRS and independent pain diagnosis. When comparing to PD, MRS had a total accuracy of 85%, sensitivity of 82%, and specificity of 88%. These increased to 93%, 91%, and 93% respectively, in non-herniated discs. The MRS structure measures differed significantly between Pfirrmann grades, except grade I versus grade II. When all MRS positive discs were treated, surgical success was 97% versus 57% when the treated level was MRS negative, or 54% when the non-treated adjacent level was MRS positive. Conclusion MRS correlates with PD and may support improved surgical outcomes for CLBP patients. Noninvasive MRS is a potentially valuable approach to clarifying pain mechanisms and designing CLBP therapies that are customized to the patient. Graphical abstract These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material. Open image in new window

Study design: Analysis of 2- and 7-year outcomes from a clinical trial comparing 2-level cervical disk arthroplasty (CDA) to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) in 287 patients with radiculopathy alone, and 110 patients with myelopathy alone or myelopathy with radiculopathy. Objective: To compare the long-term safety and effectiveness of CDA for myelopathy versus radiculopathy. Summary of background data: CDA for myelopathy is safe and effective in short term. Materials and methods: We analyzed Neck Disability Index (NDI), neck/arm pain, SF-36, neurological status, adverse events (AEs), and secondary surgeries at index and adjacent levels. Results: All groups improved significantly for NDI, neck/arm pain, and physical component summary (PCS) scores from preoperative to postoperative. CDA Myelopathy versus CDA Radiculopathy: 2- and 7-year improvements were not significantly different. The 7-year score improvements for CDA Myelopathy and CDA Radiculopathy were: NDI (37.8 vs. 35.8, P=0.352), neck pain (12.0 vs. 12.1, P=0.477), arm pain (11.6 vs. 9.6, P=0.480), and PCS (14.1 vs. 13.7, P=0.863). The 2 groups had similar proportions of patients who maintained or improved their neurological status (87.2% vs. 93.5%, P=0.218), similar rates of serious AEs (54.5% vs. 57.5%, P=0.291) and similar rates of secondary surgeries at index (3.7% vs. 4.4%, P=0.839) and adjacent levels (3.7% vs. 7.6%, P=0.367). CDA Myelopathy versus ACDF myelopathy: 2 and 7-year improvements were not significantly different. The 7-year CDA and ACDF score improvements were: NDI (37.8 vs. 31.1, P=0.147), neck pain (12.0 vs. 10.4, P=0.337), arm pain (11.6 vs. 11.4, P=0.791), and PCS (14.1 vs. 11.2, P=0.363). The 2 groups had statistically similar proportions who maintained or improved their neurological status (87.2% vs. 96.2%, P=0.409), statistically similar overall rates of secondary surgeries at the index levels (3.7% vs. 9.4%, P=0.374), and statistically similar rates of secondary surgeries at adjacent levels (3.7% vs. 15.4%, P=0.088). CDA group demonstrated lower rates of serious AEs than ACDF (54.5% vs. 65.9%, P=0.019). Conclusions: CDA for myelopathy is a safe and effective long-term treatment.