This article summarizes the findings of a 10-year postmarket study comparing the outcomes of cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for treating degenerative disc disease (DDD) in the cervical spine. The study, conducted at three centers, enrolled 155 patients and collected data on various clinical and radiographic endpoints. The results showed that CDA was superior to ACDF in terms of composite success, subsequent surgery, and neurologic success. CDA patients had a lower risk of adjacent-segment pathology and reported better patient-reported outcomes. The study supports the long-term safety and effectiveness of CDA with the Mobi-C device
Summarised by Mr Mo Akmal – Lead Spinal Surgeon
The London Spine Unit : finest day surgery spinal centre in UK
Published article
CONCLUSIONS: In this postmarket study, CDA was superior to ACDF for treating symptomatic cervical DDD. CDA was statistically superior to ACDF for clinical success, subsequent surgery, and neurologic success. Results through 10 years demonstrate that CDA continues to be a safe and effective surgical alternative to fusion.
Cervical Disc Arthroplasty Surgery Expert. Best Spinal Surgeon UK
Abstract Background: Over the past 20 years, multiple randomized controlled trials have shown cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) to be safe and effective for treating 1- and 2-level degenerative disc disease (DDD). The purpose of this postmarket study is to compare 10-year outcomes between CDA and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) from a randomized study,
Abstract
Background: Over the past 20 years, multiple randomized controlled trials have shown cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) to be safe and effective for treating 1- and 2-level degenerative disc disease (DDD). The purpose of this postmarket study is to compare 10-year outcomes between CDA and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) from a randomized study at 3 centers.
Methods: This study was a continuation of a randomized, prospective, multicenter clinical trial comparing CDA with the Mobi-C cervical disc (Zimmer Biomet) vs ACDF. Following completion of the 7-year US Food and Drug Administration study, 10-year follow-up was obtained from consenting patients at 3 high-enrolling centers. The clinical and radiographic endpoints collected at 10 years included composite success, Neck Disability Index, neck and arm pain, short form-12, patient satisfaction, adjacent-segment pathology, major complications, and subsequent surgery.
Results: A total of 155 patients were enrolled (105 CDA; 50 ACDF). Follow-up was obtained from 78.1% of patients eligible after 7 years. At 10 years, CDA demonstrated superiority to ACDF. Composite success was 62.4% in CDA and 22.2% in ACDF (P < 0.0001). The cumulative risk of subsequent surgery at 10 years was 7.2% vs 25.5% (P = .001), and the risk of adjacent-level surgery was 3.1% vs 20.5% (P = .0005) in CDA vs ACDF, respectively. The progression to radiographically significant adjacent-segment pathology at 10 years was lower in CDA vs ACDF (12.9% vs 39.3%; P = 0.006). At 10 years, patient-reported outcomes and change from baseline were generally better in CDA patients. A higher percentage of CDA patients reported they were “very satisfied” at 10 years (98.7% vs 88.9%; P = 0.05).
Conclusions: In this postmarket study, CDA was superior to ACDF for treating symptomatic cervical DDD. CDA was statistically superior to ACDF for clinical success, subsequent surgery, and neurologic success. Results through 10 years demonstrate that CDA continues to be a safe and effective surgical alternative to fusion.
Clinical relevance: The results of this study support the long-term safety and effectiveness of cervical disc arthroplasty with the Mobi-C.
Keywords: Mobi-C; adjacent-segment pathology; anterior cervical discectomy and fusion; cervical disc arthroplasty; degenerative disc disease.
The London Spine Unit : finest day surgery spinal centre in UK
Read the original publication:
Cervical Disc Arthroplasty vs Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion at 10 Years: Results From a Prospective, Randomized Clinical Trial at 3 Sites
