Dynamic Cervical Implant (DCI) Versus Anterior Cervical Discectomy And Fusion(ACDF) For The Treatment Of Single-Level Cervical Degenerative Disc Disease (DDD): An RCT
Study Overview
Status
Status
Conditions
Conditions
Intervention / Treatment
Intervention / Treatment
Detailed Description
Study Type
Study Type
Enrollment (Anticipated)
Enrollment
Phase
Phase
- Not Applicable
Contacts and Locations
Study Contact
Study Contact
- Name: Mahmoud Saleh El Attar, Master
- Phone Number: 01014919050
- Email: attar@med.aun.edu.eg
Participation Criteria
Eligibility Criteria
Eligibility Criteria
Ages Eligible for Study
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
Genders Eligible for Study
Description
Inclusion Criteria:
- Single or multiple symptomatic cervical DDD with radiculopathy and\or mylopathy not responding to non-surgical management
- Age older than 18 years
Exclusion Criteria:
- ossification of posterior longitudinal ligament
- facet arthritis
- lack of motion or instability at the level of surgery
- fracture
- infection
- tumors
- osteoprosis
Study Plan
How is the study designed?
Design Details
- Primary Purpose: TREATMENT
- Allocation: RANDOMIZED
- Interventional Model: PARALLEL
- Masking: DOUBLE
Number of Arms
Arms and Interventions
Participant Group / ArmParticipant Group / Arm |
Intervention / TreatmentIntervention / Treatment |
|---|---|
|
ACTIVE_COMPARATOR: Group (1) (ACDF)
All patients on this group will undergo Anterior Cervical Discectomy And Fusion
|
A standard anterior approach was made with discectomy sparing the cartilage, and with foraminal decompression.
Complete excision of the posterior longitudinal ligament was routinely performed to complete neural decompression.
Trial inserters were used to identify the proper implant size.
Device under sizing may lead to poor fixation and implant migration.
The largest possible device that can be safely placed should be selected to maximize device- endplate contact and to gain support from the apophyseal rim.
The teeth of the implant were optimally fixated to the endplate via Caspar pin compression following device insertion.
The device may be replaced or changed using the same insertion instrument if final imaging demonstrated suboptimal positioning.
Rinsing the implanted disc space removes rests of blood and bone dust, all potentially promoting HO
|
|
ACTIVE_COMPARATOR: Group (2) (DCI)
All patients on this group will undergo Dynamic Cervical Implant
|
A standard anterior approach was made with discectomy sparing the cartilage, and with foraminal decompression.
Complete excision of the posterior longitudinal ligament was routinely performed to complete neural decompression.
Trial inserters were used to identify the proper implant size.
Device under sizing may lead to poor fixation and implant migration.
The largest possible device that can be safely placed should be selected to maximize device- endplate contact and to gain support from the apophyseal rim.
The teeth of the implant were optimally fixated to the endplate via Caspar pin compression following device insertion.
The device may be replaced or changed using the same insertion instrument if final imaging demonstrated suboptimal positioning.
Rinsing the implanted disc space removes rests of blood and bone dust, all potentially promoting HO
|
What is the study measuring?
Primary Outcome Measures
Primary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
|
Radiological outcome
Time Frame: At 1 year follow up.
|
MRI grading for the degree of ASD (Mario Matsumato grading)
|
At 1 year follow up.
|
Secondary Outcome Measures
Secondary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
|
Clinical outcome
Time Frame: At 3 month .
|
1-Neck Disability Index (NDI) : 10 item score from 0 to 5 maximum score is 50 , high score is worse
|
At 3 month .
|
|
Radiological outcome (Plain x-ray)
Time Frame: at 6 month.
|
1- Cervical sagittal alignment C2 to C7 (Cobb angle) 5-implant fusion described as a less than 1-mm motion between the tips of the spinous processes in dynamic radiographs and/or the presence of bridging bony trabeculae. |
at 6 month.
|
|
Radiological outcome (MSCT)
Time Frame: At 1 year .
|
1-implant fusion
|
At 1 year .
|
|
clinical outcome
Time Frame: At 3 month .
|
Visual analogue scale (VAS) scores for neck and arm from 0 to 10 score , the higher score is worse
|
At 3 month .
|
|
radiological outcome
Time Frame: at 6 month .
|
2- Range of motion (ROM) using Cobb method for cervical spine and functional spine unit of treated segment
|
at 6 month .
|
Collaborators and Investigators
Sponsor
Sponsor
Publications and helpful links
General Publications
- Radcliff K, Coric D, Albert T. Five-year clinical results of cervical total disc replacement compared with anterior discectomy and fusion for treatment of 2-level symptomatic degenerative disc disease: a prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter investigational device exemption clinical trial. J Neurosurg Spine. 2016 Aug;25(2):213-24. doi: 10.3171/2015.12.SPINE15824. Epub 2016 Mar 25. Erratum In: J Neurosurg Spine. 2016 Aug;25(2):280.
- Irwin ZN, Hilibrand A, Gustavel M, McLain R, Shaffer W, Myers M, Glaser J, Hart RA. Variation in surgical decision making for degenerative spinal disorders. Part II: cervical spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005 Oct 1;30(19):2214-9. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000181056.76595.f7.
- Fuller DA, Kirkpatrick JS, Emery SE, Wilber RG, Davy DT. A kinematic study of the cervical spine before and after segmental arthrodesis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1998 Aug 1;23(15):1649-56. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199808010-00006.
- Hilibrand AS, Yoo JU, Carlson GD, Bohlman HH. The success of anterior cervical arthrodesis adjacent to a previous fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1997 Jul 15;22(14):1574-9. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199707150-00009.
- Shao MM, Chen CH, Lin ZK, Wang XY, Huang QS, Chi YL, Wu AM. Comparison of the more than 5-year clinical outcomes of cervical disc arthroplasty versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: A protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective randomized controlled trials. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016 Dec;95(51):e5733. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000005733. Erratum In: Medicine (Baltimore). 2017 Feb 24;96(8):e6219.
- Coric D, Kim PK, Clemente JD, Boltes MO, Nussbaum M, James S. Prospective randomized study of cervical arthroplasty and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with long-term follow-up: results in 74 patients from a single site. J Neurosurg Spine. 2013 Jan;18(1):36-42. doi: 10.3171/2012.9.SPINE12555. Epub 2012 Nov 9.
- Zou S, Gao J, Xu B, Lu X, Han Y, Meng H. Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) versus cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) for two contiguous levels cervical disc degenerative disease: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Eur Spine J. 2017 Apr;26(4):985-997. doi: 10.1007/s00586-016-4655-5. Epub 2016 Jun 17.
- Gornet MF, Lanman TH, Burkus JK, Hodges SD, McConnell JR, Dryer RF, Copay AG, Nian H, Harrell FE Jr. Cervical disc arthroplasty with the Prestige LP disc versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, at 2 levels: results of a prospective, multicenter randomized controlled clinical trial at 24 months. J Neurosurg Spine. 2017 Jun;26(6):653-667. doi: 10.3171/2016.10.SPINE16264. Epub 2017 Mar 17.
- Wu TK, Wang BY, Meng Y, Ding C, Yang Y, Lou JG, Liu H. Multilevel cervical disc replacement versus multilevel anterior discectomy and fusion: A meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017 Apr;96(16):e6503. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000006503.
- Lu VM, Zhang L, Scherman DB, Rao PJ, Mobbs RJ, Phan K. Treating multi-level cervical disc disease with hybrid surgery compared to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Spine J. 2017 Feb;26(2):546-557. doi: 10.1007/s00586-016-4791-y. Epub 2016 Sep 27.
- Kelly MP, Eliasberg CD, Riley MS, Ajiboye RM, SooHoo NF. Reoperation and complications after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion and cervical disc arthroplasty: a study of 52,395 cases. Eur Spine J. 2018 Jun;27(6):1432-1439. doi: 10.1007/s00586-018-5570-8. Epub 2018 Mar 31.
- Pickett GE, Sekhon LH, Sears WR, Duggal N. Complications with cervical arthroplasty. J Neurosurg Spine. 2006 Feb;4(2):98-105. doi: 10.3171/spi.2006.4.2.98.
- Li Z, Yu S, Zhao Y, Hou S, Fu Q, Li F, Hou T, Zhong H. Clinical and radiologic comparison of dynamic cervical implant arthroplasty versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for the treatment of cervical degenerative disc disease. J Clin Neurosci. 2014 Jun;21(6):942-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jocn.2013.09.007. Epub 2013 Nov 4.
- Wang L, Song YM, Liu LM, Liu H, Li T. Clinical and radiographic outcomes of dynamic cervical implant replacement for treatment of single-level degenerative cervical disc disease: a 24-month follow-up. Eur Spine J. 2014 Aug;23(8):1680-7. doi: 10.1007/s00586-014-3180-7. Epub 2014 Jan 29.
Study record dates
Study Major Dates
Study Start (ANTICIPATED)
Study Start
Primary Completion (ANTICIPATED)
Primary Completion
Study Completion (ANTICIPATED)
Study Completion
Study Registration Dates
First Submitted
First Submitted
First Submitted That Met QC Criteria
First Submitted That Met QC Criteria
First Posted (ACTUAL)
First Posted
Study Record Updates
Last Update Posted (ACTUAL)
Last Update Posted
Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria
Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria
Last Verified
Last Verified
More Information
Terms related to this study
Keywords
Additional Relevant MeSH Terms
Other Study ID Numbers
Other Study ID Numbers
- Cervical Degenerative Disease
Drug and device information, study documents
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product
This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.