Arthroplasty Versus Fusion in Anterior Cervical Surgery: Prospective Study of the Impact on the Adjacent Level
NCT ID: NCT00554528
Last Updated: 2015-09-30
Study Results
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
COMPLETED
PHASE4
200 participants
INTERVENTIONAL
2007-05-31
2012-05-31
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Cervical Arthroplasty "Fixed Core" Versus "Movable Core": Clinical and Radiological Impact in the Medium Term
NCT02924506
A Study of Korean Society of Spine Surgery on the Outcomes of Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion
NCT01911013
Effectiveness and Safety of Mobile Artificial Cervical Vertebrae Replacement for Patients With Cervical Spondylosis
NCT04813211
A Muti-Center Study Comparing 3 Procedures for Bi-level Cervical Spondylosis
NCT03358225
Clinical Outcome After Anterior Cervical Decompression and Fusion and Cervical Total Disc Replacement
NCT02498028
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
The aim of our prospective randomized study is to evaluate the aftermath of the arthroplasty compared to the fusion on the adjacent disk degeneration.
The main objective is to show a radiological difference at 3 years in term of adjacent disk degeneration.
The secondary objectives are:
* evaluate the rate of new clinical symptoms during three years
* show differences during the postoperative period, especially concerning the length of the hospital stay, the use of pain killers and return to work.
* verify the maintaining of mobility pf the prosthesis during three years.
This is a controlled study with two group of equal size: one group is treated by discectomy and arthrodesis and the other by discectomy and prosthesis/ The criteria for the inclusion of the patients are: clinical radiculopathy and/or myelopathy due to a cervical disk disease (disk herniation or osteophytosis), lack of effect of the medical treatment, CT scan or MRI showing a compression of roots and/or spinal cord.
The main exclusion criteria are: plurisegmental disk disease, injuries happened during professional activities, previous cervical surgery.
During the study, we perform a clinical (standardized scales: Neck Disability Index, Short Form 36, and neurological exam) and a radiological (height of the adjacent disks, ostheophytis,…) follow-up.
The analysis of the current literature and statistical process leads to a total amount of 220 patients enrolled in the study. This is a multicentric study organized for a total duration of five years (two years for inclusions and three years of follow-up).
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
RANDOMIZED
FACTORIAL
TREATMENT
NONE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
A
patient receiving cervical disc prosthesis with a mobile insert named Mobi-C and product by LDR médical
cervical disc prosthesis with a mobile insert named Mobi-C
Stage 1: partial discectomy
stage 2: location of the medial axis
stage 3: centering pin
stage 4: installation of the caspar spacer
stage 5: total discectomy
stage 6: parallel distraction
stage 7: depth measurement
stage 8: trial implant
stage 9: assembly
stage 10: implant insertion
stage 11: anchorage optimization
B
patient receiving intersomatic cage
arthrodesis - cervical disk surgery
discectomy and arthrodesis
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
cervical disc prosthesis with a mobile insert named Mobi-C
Stage 1: partial discectomy
stage 2: location of the medial axis
stage 3: centering pin
stage 4: installation of the caspar spacer
stage 5: total discectomy
stage 6: parallel distraction
stage 7: depth measurement
stage 8: trial implant
stage 9: assembly
stage 10: implant insertion
stage 11: anchorage optimization
arthrodesis - cervical disk surgery
discectomy and arthrodesis
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
* myelopathy due to a cervical disk disease
* lack of effect of the medical treatment
* CT scan or MRI showing a compression of roots and/or spinal cord
Exclusion Criteria
* injuries happened during professional activities
* previous cervical surgery
18 Years
55 Years
ALL
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Nice
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
Stephane LITRICO, Dr
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Nice
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
Department of Neurosurgery, CHU de Nice
Nice, , France
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
References
Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.
Dmitriev AE, Cunningham BW, Hu N, Sell G, Vigna F, McAfee PC. Adjacent level intradiscal pressure and segmental kinematics following a cervical total disc arthroplasty: an in vitro human cadaveric model. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005 May 15;30(10):1165-72. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000162441.23824.95.
Eck JC, Humphreys SC, Lim TH, Jeong ST, Kim JG, Hodges SD, An HS. Biomechanical study on the effect of cervical spine fusion on adjacent-level intradiscal pressure and segmental motion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2002 Nov 15;27(22):2431-4. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200211150-00003.
Hilibrand AS, Robbins M. Adjacent segment degeneration and adjacent segment disease: the consequences of spinal fusion? Spine J. 2004 Nov-Dec;4(6 Suppl):190S-194S. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2004.07.007.
Goffin J, Geusens E, Vantomme N, Quintens E, Waerzeggers Y, Depreitere B, Van Calenbergh F, van Loon J. Long-term follow-up after interbody fusion of the cervical spine. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2004 Apr;17(2):79-85. doi: 10.1097/00024720-200404000-00001.
Link HD, McAfee PC, Pimenta L. Choosing a cervical disc replacement. Spine J. 2004 Nov-Dec;4(6 Suppl):294S-302S. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2004.07.022.
Albert TJ, Eichenbaum MD. Goals of cervical disc replacement. Spine J. 2004 Nov-Dec;4(6 Suppl):292S-293S. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2004.07.023.
McAfee PC. The indications for lumbar and cervical disc replacement. Spine J. 2004 Nov-Dec;4(6 Suppl):177S-181S. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2004.07.003.
Fager CA. Cervical arthroplasty. J Neurosurg Spine. 2005 Mar;2(3):394-5; author reply 395. doi: 10.3171/spi.2005.2.3.0394. No abstract available.
Phillips FM, Garfin SR. Cervical disc replacement. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005 Sep 1;30(17 Suppl):S27-33. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000175192.55139.69.
Pracyk JB, Traynelis VC. Treatment of the painful motion segment: cervical arthroplasty. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005 Aug 15;30(16 Suppl):S23-32. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000174507.45083.98.
Hacker RJ. Cervical disc arthroplasty: a controlled randomized prospective study with intermediate follow-up results. Invited submission from the joint section meeting on disorders of the spine and peripheral nerves, March 2005. J Neurosurg Spine. 2005 Dec;3(6):424-8. doi: 10.3171/spi.2005.3.6.0424.
Robertson JT, Papadopoulos SM, Traynelis VC. Assessment of adjacent-segment disease in patients treated with cervical fusion or arthroplasty: a prospective 2-year study. J Neurosurg Spine. 2005 Dec;3(6):417-23. doi: 10.3171/spi.2005.3.6.0417.
Singh M, Gopinath R. Topical analgesia for chest tube removal in cardiac patients. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2005 Dec;19(6):719-22. doi: 10.1053/j.jvca.2005.07.024.
Chi JH, Ames CP, Tay B. General considerations for cervical arthroplasty with technique for ProDisc-C. Neurosurg Clin N Am. 2005 Oct;16(4):609-19, vi. doi: 10.1016/j.nec.2005.07.001.
Bertagnoli R, Yue JJ, Pfeiffer F, Fenk-Mayer A, Lawrence JP, Kershaw T, Nanieva R. Early results after ProDisc-C cervical disc replacement. J Neurosurg Spine. 2005 Apr;2(4):403-10. doi: 10.3171/spi.2005.2.4.0403.
Puttlitz CM, Rousseau MA, Xu Z, Hu S, Tay BK, Lotz JC. Intervertebral disc replacement maintains cervical spine kinetics. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004 Dec 15;29(24):2809-14. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000147739.42354.a9.
Puttlitz CM, DiAngelo DJ. Cervical spine arthroplasty biomechanics. Neurosurg Clin N Am. 2005 Oct;16(4):589-94, v. doi: 10.1016/j.nec.2005.07.002.
Pickett GE, Rouleau JP, Duggal N. Kinematic analysis of the cervical spine following implantation of an artificial cervical disc. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005 Sep 1;30(17):1949-54. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000176320.82079.ce.
Parkinson JF, Sekhon LH. Cervical arthroplasty complicated by delayed spontaneous fusion. Case report. J Neurosurg Spine. 2005 Mar;2(3):377-80. doi: 10.3171/spi.2005.2.3.0377.
Murray BE, Lopardo HA, Rubeglio EA, Frosolono M, Singh KV. Intrahospital spread of a single gentamicin-resistant, beta-lactamase-producing strain of Enterococcus faecalis in Argentina. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1992 Jan;36(1):230-2. doi: 10.1128/AAC.36.1.230.
Bertagnoli R, Duggal N, Pickett GE, Wigfield CC, Gill SS, Karg A, Voigt S. Cervical total disc replacement, part two: clinical results. Orthop Clin North Am. 2005 Jul;36(3):355-62. doi: 10.1016/j.ocl.2005.02.009.
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.
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
06-APN-01
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.