Clinical study to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the Aesculap Activ-L artificial disc in the treatment of degenerative disc disease
James J Yue, Fred F Mo, James J Yue, Fred F Mo
Abstract
Background: The objective of this clinical study is to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the Activ-L Artificial Disc for treatment of single-level degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine in patients who have been unresponsive to at least six months of prior conservative care. The hypothesis of the study is that the Activ-L Disc is non-inferior to the control (the Charité Artificial Disc [DePuy Spine] or ProDisc-L Total Disc Replacement [Synthes Spine]) with respect to the rate of individual subject success at 24 months. Individual subject success is a composite of effectiveness and safety.
Methods/design: The study proposed is a prospective, randomized, single-masked, controlled, multi-center clinical trial consisting of an estimated 414 subjects with single-level DDD of the lumbar spine (L4/L5, or L5/S1) who have failed to improve with conservative treatment for at least six months prior to enrollment. After enrollment, subjects will be randomized in a 2:1 ratio to either the Activ-L Disc (investigational device) or the control (Charité or ProDisc-L). Radiographic endpoints will be evaluated by an independent reviewer at an imaging core laboratory. Each subject will be followed for 5 years post-treatment.
Discussion: The safety and effectiveness of the Activ-L Artificial Disc for treatment of single-level degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine will be equivalent to Charité Artificial Disc [DePuy Spine] or ProDisc-L Total Disc Replacement [Synthes Spine] at 24 months.
Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials NCT00589797.
Figures
References
- Goins ML, Wimberly DW, Yuan PS, Fitzhenry LN, Vaccaro AR. Nucleus pulposus replacement: an emerging technology. Spine J. 2005;5:317S–324S. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2005.02.021.
- Christensen FB. Lumbar spinal fusion. Outcome in relation to surgical methods, choice of implant and postoperative rehabilitation. Acta Orthop Scand Suppl. 2004;75(313):2–43.
- Bao QB, Yuan HA. Artificial disc technology. Neurosurg Focus. 2004;9(4):Article 14.
- Hochberg Y, Benjamini Y. More powerful procedures for multiple significance testing. Statistics in Medicine. 1990;9:811–118. doi: 10.1002/sim.4780090710.
- Huang RC, Girardi FP, Cammisa FP Jr, Lim MR, Tropiano P, Mamy T. Correlation between Range of Motion and Outcome after Lumbar Total Disc Replacement: 8.6-Year Follow-up. Spine J. 2005;30(12):1407–1411. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000166528.67425.0e.
- Tropiano P, Huang RC, Girardi FP, Cammisa FP, Marnay T. Lumbar total disc replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88:50–64. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.E.01066.
- Blackwelder WC. "Proving the null hypothesis" in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1982;3:345–353. doi: 10.1016/0197-2456(82)90024-1.
- Morikawa T, Yoshida M. A useful testing strategy in phase III trials: Combined test of superiority and test of equivalence. J Biopharm Stat. 1995;5(3):297–306. doi: 10.1080/10543409508835115.
- Singh V, Derby R. Percutaneous lumbar disc decompression. Pain Physician. 2006;9:139–46.
Source: PubMed