The following article requires a subscription:

(Format: HTML, PDF)

Study Design. Randomized controlled trial.

Objective. Analyze the clinical outcomes at 5 years comparing cervical total disc replacement (TDR) with ProDisc-C (Synthes Spine USA Products; LLC, West Chester, PA) with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF).

Summary of Background Data. Previous reports of 2- and 4-year results have shown that ProDisc-C, a TDR for surgical treatment of patients experiencing single-level symptomatic cervical disc disease between C3 and C7, is safe and effective.

Methods. Two hundred nine patients (103 ProDisc-C and 106 ACDF) from 13 sites were randomized and treated. Results including neck disability index, visual analog scale (VAS) neck and arm pain, Short Form-36 (SF-36), neurological examination, device success, adverse event occurrence, and VAS patient satisfaction were analyzed.

Results. Demographics were similar between the 2 patient groups (ProDisc-C: 42.1 /- 8.4 yr, 44.7% males; ACDF: 43.5 /- 7.1 yr, 46.2% males). Rates of follow-up at 2 years were 98.1% ProDisc-C and 94.8% ACDF, and at 5 years 72.7% ProDisc-C and 63.5% ACDF. For all clinical outcomes for both groups, there was a statistically and clinically significant improvement at 2 and 5 years compared with baseline. At 5 years, ProDisc-C patients had statistically significantly less neck pain intensity and frequency. Both groups scored high VAS satisfaction scores at 5 years, with ProDisc-C 86.56 and ACDF 82.74. There were no reports of device failures or implant migration with ProDisc-C. The ProDisc-C patients maintained motion at their index level. At 5 years, the ProDisc-C patients had a statistically significantly lower rate of reoperation compared with ACDF patients (2.9% vs. 11.3%).

Conclusion. Five-year results show that TDR with ProDisc-C is a safe and effective treatment of single-level symptomatic cervical disc disease. Clinical outcomes were comparable with ACDF. ProDisc-C patients maintained motion at the index level and had significantly less neck pain intensity and frequency as well as a lower probability of secondary surgery.

(C) 2013 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.