scholarly journals Multi-center, Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Investigational Device Exemption Clinical Trial Comparing Mobi-C Cervical Artificial Disc to Anterior Discectomy and Fusion in the Treatment of Symptomatic Degenerative Disc Disease in the Cervical Spine

10.14444/1007 ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
pp. 7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael S. Hisey ◽  
Hyun W. Bae ◽  
Reginald Davis ◽  
Steven Gaede ◽  
Greg Hoffman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Cervical Spine ◽  
Degenerative Disc Disease ◽  
Artificial Disc ◽  
Disc Disease ◽  
Degenerative Disc ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Investigational Device Exemption ◽  
Anterior Discectomy ◽  
Anterior Discectomy And Fusion

scholarly journals Two-level total disc replacement with Mobi-C cervical artificial disc versus anterior discectomy and fusion: a prospective, randomized, controlled multicenter clinical trial with 4-year follow-up results

2015 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 15-25 ◽  
Author(s):  
Reginald J. Davis ◽  
Pierce Dalton Nunley ◽  
Kee D. Kim ◽  
Michael S. Hisey ◽  
Robert J. Jackson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Degenerative Disc Disease ◽  
Total Disc Replacement ◽  
Disc Replacement ◽  
Adjacent Segment ◽  
Artificial Disc ◽  
Disc Disease ◽  
Degenerative Disc

OBJECT The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of 2-level total disc replacement (TDR) using a Mobi-C cervical artificial disc at 48 months' follow-up. METHODS A prospective randomized, US FDA investigational device exemption pivotal trial of the Mobi-C cervical artificial disc was conducted at 24 centers in the US. Three hundred thirty patients with degenerative disc disease were randomized and treated with cervical total disc replacement (225 patients) or the control treatment, anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) (105 patients). Patients were followed up at regular intervals for 4 years after surgery. RESULTS At 48 months, both groups demonstrated improvement in clinical outcome measures and a comparable safety profile. Data were available for 202 TDR patients and 89 ACDF patients in calculation of the primary endpoint. TDR patients had statistically significantly greater improvement than ACDF patients for the following outcome measures compared with baseline: Neck Disability Index scores, 12-Item Short Form Health Survey Physical Component Summary scores, patient satisfaction, and overall success. ACDF patients experienced higher subsequent surgery rates and displayed a higher rate of adjacent-segment degeneration as seen on radiographs. Overall, TDR patients maintained segmental range of motion through 48 months with no device failure. CONCLUSIONS Four-year results from this study continue to support TDR as a safe, effective, and statistically superior alternative to ACDF for the treatment of degenerative disc disease at 2 contiguous cervical levels. Clinical trial registration no.: NCT00389597 (clinicaltrials.gov)

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document