search
Back to results

Study of the Safety and Effectiveness of the Artificial Cervical Disc - Low Profile Device at Two Adjacent Levels

Primary Purpose

Cervical Degenerative Disc Disease, Radiculopathy, Myelopathy

Status
Completed
Phase
Not Applicable
Locations
United States
Study Type
Interventional
Intervention
PRESTIGE LP device at two adjacent levels
Bi-level fusion with ATLANTIS Cervical Plate System
Sponsored by
Medtronic Spinal and Biologics
About
Eligibility
Locations
Arms
Outcomes
Full info

About this trial

This is an interventional treatment trial for Cervical Degenerative Disc Disease focused on measuring Symptomatic DDD at Two Adjacent Levels of cervical spine

Eligibility Criteria

18 Years - undefined (Adult, Older Adult)All SexesDoes not accept healthy volunteers

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Has cervical DDD at 2 adjacent cervical levels (C3-C7) requiring surgical treatment & involving intractable radiculopathy, myelopathy, or both
  • Has a herniated disc and/or osteophyte formation at each level to be treated that is producing symptomatic nerve root and/or spinal cord compression. The condition is documented by patient history, and the requirement for surgical treatment is evidenced by radiographic studies
  • Unresponsive to non-operative treatment for approximately 6 weeks or has the presence of progressive symptoms or signs of nerve root/spinal cord compression in the face of continued non-operative management
  • Has no previous surgical intervention at the involved levels or any subsequent planned/staged surgical procedure at the involved or adjacent level(s)
  • Must be ≥ 18 years; skeletally mature at time of surgery
  • Preoperative NDI score ≥ 30
  • Preoperative neck pain score ≥ 8 based on the preoperative Neck and Arm Pain Questionnaire
  • If a female of childbearing potential, patient is non-pregnant, non-nursing, and agrees not to become pregnant during the study period
  • Is willing to comply with the study plan and sign Patient Informed Consent Form

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Has a cervical spinal condition other than symptomatic cervical DDD requiring surgical treatment at the involved levels
  • Has documented or diagnosed cervical instability relative to adjacent segments at either level, defined by dynamic (flexion/extension) radiographs showing: Sagittal plane translation > 3.5 mm, or Sagittal plane angulation > 20 degrees.
  • Has more than two cervical levels requiring surgical treatment
  • Has a fused level adjacent to the levels to be treated
  • Has severe pathology of the facet joints of the involved vertebral bodies
  • Has had previous surgical intervention at either one or both of the involved levels or at adjacent levels
  • Has been previously diagnosed with osteopenia or osteomalacia
  • Has any of the following that may be associated with a diagnosis of osteoporosis (If "Yes" to any of the below a DEXA Scan will be required to determine eligibility.)

    • Postmenopausal non-Black female over age of 60 who weighs < 140 pounds
    • Postmenopausal female who has sustained a non-traumatic hip, spine, or wrist fracture
    • Male > 70 years
    • Male > 60 years who has sustained a non-traumatic hip or spine fracture
    • If the level of BMD is a T score of -3.5 or lower or a T score of -2.5 or lower with vertebral crush fracture, then the patient is excluded from the study
  • Has presence of spinal metastases
  • Has overt or active bacterial infection, either local or systemic
  • Has insulin dependent diabetes
  • Is a tobacco user who does not agree to suspend smoking prior to surgery
  • Has chronic or acute renal failure or prior history of renal disease
  • Has a documented allergy or intolerance to stainless steel, titanium, or a titanium alloy
  • Is mentally incompetent (If questionable, obtain psychiatric consult)
  • Is a prisoner
  • Is pregnant
  • Is an alcohol and/or drug abuser as defined by currently undergoing treatment for alcohol and/or drug abuse
  • Is involved with current or pending litigation regarding a spinal condition
  • Has received drugs that may interfere with bone metabolism within two weeks prior to the planned date of spinal surgery (e.g., steroids or methotrexate), excluding routine perioperative anti-inflammatory drugs
  • Has a history of an endocrine or metabolic disorder known to affect osteogenesis (e.g., Paget's Disease, renal osteodystrophy, Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome, or osteogenesis imperfecta)
  • Has a condition that requires postoperative medications that interfere with the stability of the implant, such as steroids. (This does not include low-dose aspirin for prophylactic anticoagulation and routine perioperative anti-inflammatory drugs.)
  • Has received treatment with an investigational therapy within 28 days prior to implantation surgery or such treatment is planned during the 16 weeks following implantation

Sites / Locations

  • The Orthopaedic Center; Crestwood Medical Center
  • Todd Lanman, MD, FACS, A Professional Corp.;
  • Bone & Spine Surgery
  • La Jolla Neurological Associates, AMC; Scripps Memorial Hospital La Jolla; Scripps Memorial Hospital Encinitas
  • St. Mary's Spine Center; St. Mary's Hospital
  • Delaware Neurosurgical Group; Christiana Care Health Systems
  • Spinal Associates, Gulf Coast Hospital
  • Peachtree Neurosurgery, Northside Hospital
  • The Hughston Clinic, P.C., Hughston Hospital and Rehabilitation Center
  • Neuro Spine & Pain Center; Lutheran Hospital
  • University of Iowa Hospitals & Clinics
  • Great Lakes Neurosurgical; Spectrum Health East Campus
  • Adams Neurosurgery; Mid Michigan Medical Center
  • Henry Ford Hospital
  • The Orthopedic Center of St. Louis; Barnes Jewish West County Hospital
  • Montana Neuro Science Institute; St. Patrick's Medical Center
  • University at Buffalo Neurosurgery, Inc. Kaleida Health-Buffalo General Medical center/Gates Vascular Institute
  • Buffalo Neurosurgery Group
  • Crystal Clinic, Inc.; Akron General Medical Center
  • Central Ohio Neurological Surgeons; Mt. Carmel East Hospital
  • The Center Orthopaedic & Neurosurgical Care & Research
  • OAA Orthopaedic Specialists
  • Allegheny Neurosurgery; Washington Hospital
  • Lexington Brain and Spine Institute
  • Center for Sports Medicine and Orthopaedics; Memorial Hospital
  • East Tennessee Brain & Spine Center, Johnson City Medical Center
  • Central Texas Spine Institute; Health South Surgical Center
  • Virginia Brain and Spine; Winchester Medical Center
  • West Virginia University; Ruby Memorial Hospital, WVU Hospitals, Inc.

Arms of the Study

Arm 1

Arm 2

Arm Type

Experimental

Other

Arm Label

PRESTIGE LP Device

ATLANTIS Cervical Plate System

Arm Description

Outcomes

Primary Outcome Measures

Rate of Overall Success
Rate of overall success is reported as the percentage of participants who met all of the following criteria: Postoperative Neck Disability Index (NDI) score improvement of at least a 15-point increase from preoperative; Maintenance or improvement in neurological status; No serious adverse event classified as implant associated or implant/surgical procedure associated; and No additional surgical procedure classified as a "failure."

Secondary Outcome Measures

Success Rate of Neck Disability Index
Success rate of Neck Disability Index is reported as the percentage of participants whose neck disability index score met the following criterion: Pre-treatment Score - Post-treatment Score ≥ 15.
Success Rate of Neurological Status
Success rate of neurological status is reported as the percentage of participants who met neurological success defined as maintenance or improvement in all sections (motor, sensory, and reflexes) for the time period evaluated. In order for a section to be considered a success, each element in the section must either remain the same or improve from the time of the preoperative evaluation to the time period evaluated.
Neck Pain Success Rate
Numerical rating scales were used to evaluate pain intensity and frequency. The pain score (0 min, 20 max) was derived by adding the numerical rating scores from the pain intensity (0-10, with a score of 0 representing "no pain" and a score of 10 representing "pain as bad as it could be.") and frequency scales (0-10, with a score of 0 being "pain none of the time" and a score of 10 being "pain all of the time"). Neck pain success rate is reported as the percentage of participants whose neck pain improvement met the following criterion: Preoperative Score - Postoperative Score > 0.
Arm Pain Success Rate
Numerical rating scales were used to evaluate pain intensity and frequency. The pain score (0 min, 20 max) was derived by adding the numerical rating scores from the pain intensity (0-10, with a score of 0 representing "no pain" and a score of 10 representing "pain as bad as it could be.") and frequency scales (0-10, with a score of 0 being "pain none of the time" and a score of 10 being "pain all of the time"). Arm pain success rate is reported as the percentage of participants whose arm pain improvement met the following criterion: Preoperative Score - Postoperative Score > 0.
Success Rate of SF-36 PCS
Success rate of SF-36 Health Survey include two components: the success rate of a physical component summary (PCS) and the success rate of a mental component summary (MCS). The success of SF-36 PCS was defined as: Post Score - Pre Score >= 0. The Success rate of SF-36 PCS is reported as the percentage of the participants who were classified as a success for SF-36 PCS.
Success Rate of SF-36 MCS
Success rate of SF-36 Health Survey include two components: the success rate of a physical component summary (PCS) and the success rate of a mental component summary (MCS). The success of SF-36 MCS were defined as: Post Score - Pre Score >= 0. The Success rate of SF-36 MCS is reported as the percentage of the participants who were classified as a success for SF-36 MCS.
Rate of Disc Height Success
Disc height was assessed by determining the Functional Spinal Unit (FSU) height. The rate of disc height success is reported as the percentage of participants whose disc height for each level based on either the anterior or posterior measurements met the following criterion: Postoperative Height - 6 Week Postoperative Height >= -2mm
Gait Success Rate
Patient's gait was assessed by using Nurick's classification, and indicated either as normal or graded on a scale of 0 to 5. Success was defined as maintenance or improvement in the postoperative status as compared to the preoperative condition: Preoperative Score - Postoperative Score >= 0. The gait success rate is reported as the percentage of participants who had gait success.
Operative Time
Operative time was recorded from skin incision to wound closure.
Blood Loss
Hospital Stay
Rate of Secondary Surgery at Index Level
Secondary surgical procedures at the index level included revisions, removals, supplemental fixations and reoperations. Rate of secondary surgery at index level is reported as percentage of subjects who had secondary surgeries at index level.
Change of Neck Disability Index Score From Baseline
The self-administered Neck Disability Index (NDI) Questionnaire was used to assess patient neck pain and ability to function. The NDI scale ranges from 0-100. The best score is 0 (no disability) and worst is 100 (maximum disability). Change of NDI was defined as NDI at 24 month minus NDI at baseline.
Change of Neck Pain Score From Baseline
Numerical rating scales were used to evaluate neck pain intensity and frequency. Subjects rated their neck pain intensity on a scale from 0-10, with a score of 0 representing "no pain" and a score of 10 representing "pain as bad as it could be." Similarly, subjects recorded their neck pain frequency on a scale from 0-10, with a score of 0 being "pain none of the time" and a score of 10 being "pain all of the time." The total neck pain score (0 to 20) was the addition of pain intensity and frequency scores. Change of neck pain score was defined as neck pain score at 24 months minus neck pain score at baseline.
Change of Arm Pain Score From Baseline
Numerical rating scales were also used to evaluate arm pain intensity and frequency. Subjects rated their arm pain intensity on a scale from 0-10, with a score of 0 representing "no pain" and a score of 10 representing "pain as bad as it could be." Similarly, subjects recorded their arm pain frequency on a scale from 0-10, with a score of 0 being "pain none of the time" and a score of 10 being "pain all of the time." The total arm pain score (0 to 20) was the addition of pain intensity and frequency scores. Change of arm pain score was defined as arm pain score at 24 months minus arm pain score at baseline.
Change of General Health Status -- SF-36 PCS From Baseline
The Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) was used to assess general health status. The SF-36 results were summarized into two components, a physical component summary (PCS) and a mental component summary (MCS). The score for PCS was between 0 and 100, with higher scores denoting better quality of life. Change of SF-36 PCS score was defined as PCS score at 24 months minus PCS score at baseline.
Change of General Health Status -- SF-36 MCS From Baseline
The Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) was used to assess general health status. The SF-36 results were summarized into two components, a physical component summary (PCS) and a mental component summary (MCS). The score for MCS was between 0 and 100, with higher scores denoting better quality of life. Change of SF-36 MCS score was defined as MCS score at 24 months minus MCS score at baseline.

Full Information

First Posted
March 3, 2008
Last Updated
April 3, 2018
Sponsor
Medtronic Spinal and Biologics
search

1. Study Identification

Unique Protocol Identification Number
NCT00637156
Brief Title
Study of the Safety and Effectiveness of the Artificial Cervical Disc - Low Profile Device at Two Adjacent Levels
Official Title
A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled, Multicenter Pivotal Clinical Trial of the Artificial Cervical Disc-LP at Two Levels for Symptomatic Cervical Disc Disease
Study Type
Interventional

2. Study Status

Record Verification Date
October 2017
Overall Recruitment Status
Completed
Study Start Date
June 2006 (undefined)
Primary Completion Date
January 2011 (Actual)
Study Completion Date
February 1, 2018 (Actual)

3. Sponsor/Collaborators

Responsible Party, by Official Title
Sponsor
Name of the Sponsor
Medtronic Spinal and Biologics

4. Oversight

Data Monitoring Committee
Yes

5. Study Description

Brief Summary
The purpose of this clinical investigation is to assess the safety and effectiveness of using the PRESTIGE-LP device in the treatment of patients with symptomatic degenerative disc disease at two adjacent levels of the cervical spine, with overall success being the primary endpoint of the clinical trial. The primary objective is to show non-inferiority of the investigational device to the control treatment. If non-inferiority is established, superiority will also be examined as the secondary objective.
Detailed Description
This clinical investigation is being conducted to evaluate the PRESTIGE-LP device's performance at two adjacent cervical levels (C3-C7) in the treatment of patients with symptomatic degenerative disc disease. One-half of the patients in this randomized pivotal clinical trial will be treated at two adjacent cervical levels with the PRESTIGE-LP device. The remaining patients will receive a bi-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with cortical ring allografts and the ATLANTIS Cervical Plate System.

6. Conditions and Keywords

Primary Disease or Condition Being Studied in the Trial, or the Focus of the Study
Cervical Degenerative Disc Disease, Radiculopathy, Myelopathy
Keywords
Symptomatic DDD at Two Adjacent Levels of cervical spine

7. Study Design

Primary Purpose
Treatment
Study Phase
Not Applicable
Interventional Study Model
Parallel Assignment
Masking
None (Open Label)
Allocation
Randomized
Enrollment
397 (Actual)

8. Arms, Groups, and Interventions

Arm Title
PRESTIGE LP Device
Arm Type
Experimental
Arm Title
ATLANTIS Cervical Plate System
Arm Type
Other
Intervention Type
Device
Intervention Name(s)
PRESTIGE LP device at two adjacent levels
Other Intervention Name(s)
disc, artificial disc, cervical disc
Intervention Description
PRESTIGE LP is a prosthetic device intended to replace a damaged disc in the cervical spine and intended to act as an intervertebral body spacer rather than a fusion device. It is inserted using an anterior surgical approach.
Intervention Type
Device
Intervention Name(s)
Bi-level fusion with ATLANTIS Cervical Plate System
Other Intervention Name(s)
plate, cervical plate, fusion, cervical fusion
Intervention Description
Bi-level anterior cervical fusion procedure involving cortical ring allograft and the ATLANTIS Cervical Plate System.
Primary Outcome Measure Information:
Title
Rate of Overall Success
Description
Rate of overall success is reported as the percentage of participants who met all of the following criteria: Postoperative Neck Disability Index (NDI) score improvement of at least a 15-point increase from preoperative; Maintenance or improvement in neurological status; No serious adverse event classified as implant associated or implant/surgical procedure associated; and No additional surgical procedure classified as a "failure."
Time Frame
24 Months
Secondary Outcome Measure Information:
Title
Success Rate of Neck Disability Index
Description
Success rate of Neck Disability Index is reported as the percentage of participants whose neck disability index score met the following criterion: Pre-treatment Score - Post-treatment Score ≥ 15.
Time Frame
24 months
Title
Success Rate of Neurological Status
Description
Success rate of neurological status is reported as the percentage of participants who met neurological success defined as maintenance or improvement in all sections (motor, sensory, and reflexes) for the time period evaluated. In order for a section to be considered a success, each element in the section must either remain the same or improve from the time of the preoperative evaluation to the time period evaluated.
Time Frame
24 months
Title
Neck Pain Success Rate
Description
Numerical rating scales were used to evaluate pain intensity and frequency. The pain score (0 min, 20 max) was derived by adding the numerical rating scores from the pain intensity (0-10, with a score of 0 representing "no pain" and a score of 10 representing "pain as bad as it could be.") and frequency scales (0-10, with a score of 0 being "pain none of the time" and a score of 10 being "pain all of the time"). Neck pain success rate is reported as the percentage of participants whose neck pain improvement met the following criterion: Preoperative Score - Postoperative Score > 0.
Time Frame
24 months
Title
Arm Pain Success Rate
Description
Numerical rating scales were used to evaluate pain intensity and frequency. The pain score (0 min, 20 max) was derived by adding the numerical rating scores from the pain intensity (0-10, with a score of 0 representing "no pain" and a score of 10 representing "pain as bad as it could be.") and frequency scales (0-10, with a score of 0 being "pain none of the time" and a score of 10 being "pain all of the time"). Arm pain success rate is reported as the percentage of participants whose arm pain improvement met the following criterion: Preoperative Score - Postoperative Score > 0.
Time Frame
24 months
Title
Success Rate of SF-36 PCS
Description
Success rate of SF-36 Health Survey include two components: the success rate of a physical component summary (PCS) and the success rate of a mental component summary (MCS). The success of SF-36 PCS was defined as: Post Score - Pre Score >= 0. The Success rate of SF-36 PCS is reported as the percentage of the participants who were classified as a success for SF-36 PCS.
Time Frame
24 months
Title
Success Rate of SF-36 MCS
Description
Success rate of SF-36 Health Survey include two components: the success rate of a physical component summary (PCS) and the success rate of a mental component summary (MCS). The success of SF-36 MCS were defined as: Post Score - Pre Score >= 0. The Success rate of SF-36 MCS is reported as the percentage of the participants who were classified as a success for SF-36 MCS.
Time Frame
24 months
Title
Rate of Disc Height Success
Description
Disc height was assessed by determining the Functional Spinal Unit (FSU) height. The rate of disc height success is reported as the percentage of participants whose disc height for each level based on either the anterior or posterior measurements met the following criterion: Postoperative Height - 6 Week Postoperative Height >= -2mm
Time Frame
24 months
Title
Gait Success Rate
Description
Patient's gait was assessed by using Nurick's classification, and indicated either as normal or graded on a scale of 0 to 5. Success was defined as maintenance or improvement in the postoperative status as compared to the preoperative condition: Preoperative Score - Postoperative Score >= 0. The gait success rate is reported as the percentage of participants who had gait success.
Time Frame
24 months
Title
Operative Time
Description
Operative time was recorded from skin incision to wound closure.
Time Frame
Time of operation, an average of 1.7-2.1hrs
Title
Blood Loss
Time Frame
During the time of operation, an average of 1.7-2.1 hrs
Title
Hospital Stay
Time Frame
From admission to discharge, an average of 1.0-1.5 day
Title
Rate of Secondary Surgery at Index Level
Description
Secondary surgical procedures at the index level included revisions, removals, supplemental fixations and reoperations. Rate of secondary surgery at index level is reported as percentage of subjects who had secondary surgeries at index level.
Time Frame
24 months
Title
Change of Neck Disability Index Score From Baseline
Description
The self-administered Neck Disability Index (NDI) Questionnaire was used to assess patient neck pain and ability to function. The NDI scale ranges from 0-100. The best score is 0 (no disability) and worst is 100 (maximum disability). Change of NDI was defined as NDI at 24 month minus NDI at baseline.
Time Frame
Baseline and 24 months post-operation
Title
Change of Neck Pain Score From Baseline
Description
Numerical rating scales were used to evaluate neck pain intensity and frequency. Subjects rated their neck pain intensity on a scale from 0-10, with a score of 0 representing "no pain" and a score of 10 representing "pain as bad as it could be." Similarly, subjects recorded their neck pain frequency on a scale from 0-10, with a score of 0 being "pain none of the time" and a score of 10 being "pain all of the time." The total neck pain score (0 to 20) was the addition of pain intensity and frequency scores. Change of neck pain score was defined as neck pain score at 24 months minus neck pain score at baseline.
Time Frame
Baseline and 24 months post-operation
Title
Change of Arm Pain Score From Baseline
Description
Numerical rating scales were also used to evaluate arm pain intensity and frequency. Subjects rated their arm pain intensity on a scale from 0-10, with a score of 0 representing "no pain" and a score of 10 representing "pain as bad as it could be." Similarly, subjects recorded their arm pain frequency on a scale from 0-10, with a score of 0 being "pain none of the time" and a score of 10 being "pain all of the time." The total arm pain score (0 to 20) was the addition of pain intensity and frequency scores. Change of arm pain score was defined as arm pain score at 24 months minus arm pain score at baseline.
Time Frame
Baseline and 24 months post-operation
Title
Change of General Health Status -- SF-36 PCS From Baseline
Description
The Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) was used to assess general health status. The SF-36 results were summarized into two components, a physical component summary (PCS) and a mental component summary (MCS). The score for PCS was between 0 and 100, with higher scores denoting better quality of life. Change of SF-36 PCS score was defined as PCS score at 24 months minus PCS score at baseline.
Time Frame
Baseline and 24 months post-operation
Title
Change of General Health Status -- SF-36 MCS From Baseline
Description
The Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) was used to assess general health status. The SF-36 results were summarized into two components, a physical component summary (PCS) and a mental component summary (MCS). The score for MCS was between 0 and 100, with higher scores denoting better quality of life. Change of SF-36 MCS score was defined as MCS score at 24 months minus MCS score at baseline.
Time Frame
Baseline and 24 months post-operation

10. Eligibility

Sex
All
Minimum Age & Unit of Time
18 Years
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
No
Eligibility Criteria
Inclusion Criteria: Has cervical DDD at 2 adjacent cervical levels (C3-C7) requiring surgical treatment & involving intractable radiculopathy, myelopathy, or both Has a herniated disc and/or osteophyte formation at each level to be treated that is producing symptomatic nerve root and/or spinal cord compression. The condition is documented by patient history, and the requirement for surgical treatment is evidenced by radiographic studies Unresponsive to non-operative treatment for approximately 6 weeks or has the presence of progressive symptoms or signs of nerve root/spinal cord compression in the face of continued non-operative management Has no previous surgical intervention at the involved levels or any subsequent planned/staged surgical procedure at the involved or adjacent level(s) Must be ≥ 18 years; skeletally mature at time of surgery Preoperative NDI score ≥ 30 Preoperative neck pain score ≥ 8 based on the preoperative Neck and Arm Pain Questionnaire If a female of childbearing potential, patient is non-pregnant, non-nursing, and agrees not to become pregnant during the study period Is willing to comply with the study plan and sign Patient Informed Consent Form Exclusion Criteria: Has a cervical spinal condition other than symptomatic cervical DDD requiring surgical treatment at the involved levels Has documented or diagnosed cervical instability relative to adjacent segments at either level, defined by dynamic (flexion/extension) radiographs showing: Sagittal plane translation > 3.5 mm, or Sagittal plane angulation > 20 degrees. Has more than two cervical levels requiring surgical treatment Has a fused level adjacent to the levels to be treated Has severe pathology of the facet joints of the involved vertebral bodies Has had previous surgical intervention at either one or both of the involved levels or at adjacent levels Has been previously diagnosed with osteopenia or osteomalacia Has any of the following that may be associated with a diagnosis of osteoporosis (If "Yes" to any of the below a DEXA Scan will be required to determine eligibility.) Postmenopausal non-Black female over age of 60 who weighs < 140 pounds Postmenopausal female who has sustained a non-traumatic hip, spine, or wrist fracture Male > 70 years Male > 60 years who has sustained a non-traumatic hip or spine fracture If the level of BMD is a T score of -3.5 or lower or a T score of -2.5 or lower with vertebral crush fracture, then the patient is excluded from the study Has presence of spinal metastases Has overt or active bacterial infection, either local or systemic Has insulin dependent diabetes Is a tobacco user who does not agree to suspend smoking prior to surgery Has chronic or acute renal failure or prior history of renal disease Has a documented allergy or intolerance to stainless steel, titanium, or a titanium alloy Is mentally incompetent (If questionable, obtain psychiatric consult) Is a prisoner Is pregnant Is an alcohol and/or drug abuser as defined by currently undergoing treatment for alcohol and/or drug abuse Is involved with current or pending litigation regarding a spinal condition Has received drugs that may interfere with bone metabolism within two weeks prior to the planned date of spinal surgery (e.g., steroids or methotrexate), excluding routine perioperative anti-inflammatory drugs Has a history of an endocrine or metabolic disorder known to affect osteogenesis (e.g., Paget's Disease, renal osteodystrophy, Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome, or osteogenesis imperfecta) Has a condition that requires postoperative medications that interfere with the stability of the implant, such as steroids. (This does not include low-dose aspirin for prophylactic anticoagulation and routine perioperative anti-inflammatory drugs.) Has received treatment with an investigational therapy within 28 days prior to implantation surgery or such treatment is planned during the 16 weeks following implantation
Overall Study Officials:
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name & Degree
John K Burkus, M.D.
Organizational Affiliation
The Hughston Clinic, P.C.
Official's Role
Principal Investigator
Facility Information:
Facility Name
The Orthopaedic Center; Crestwood Medical Center
City
Huntsville
State/Province
Alabama
ZIP/Postal Code
35801
Country
United States
Facility Name
Todd Lanman, MD, FACS, A Professional Corp.;
City
Beverly Hills
State/Province
California
ZIP/Postal Code
90210
Country
United States
Facility Name
Bone & Spine Surgery
City
Colton
State/Province
California
ZIP/Postal Code
92324
Country
United States
Facility Name
La Jolla Neurological Associates, AMC; Scripps Memorial Hospital La Jolla; Scripps Memorial Hospital Encinitas
City
La Jolla
State/Province
California
ZIP/Postal Code
92037
Country
United States
Facility Name
St. Mary's Spine Center; St. Mary's Hospital
City
San Francisco
State/Province
California
ZIP/Postal Code
94117
Country
United States
Facility Name
Delaware Neurosurgical Group; Christiana Care Health Systems
City
Newark
State/Province
Delaware
ZIP/Postal Code
19713
Country
United States
Facility Name
Spinal Associates, Gulf Coast Hospital
City
Panama City
State/Province
Florida
ZIP/Postal Code
32405
Country
United States
Facility Name
Peachtree Neurosurgery, Northside Hospital
City
Atlanta
State/Province
Georgia
ZIP/Postal Code
30342
Country
United States
Facility Name
The Hughston Clinic, P.C., Hughston Hospital and Rehabilitation Center
City
Columbus
State/Province
Georgia
ZIP/Postal Code
31908
Country
United States
Facility Name
Neuro Spine & Pain Center; Lutheran Hospital
City
Fort Wayne
State/Province
Indiana
ZIP/Postal Code
46804
Country
United States
Facility Name
University of Iowa Hospitals & Clinics
City
Iowa City
State/Province
Iowa
ZIP/Postal Code
52242
Country
United States
Facility Name
Great Lakes Neurosurgical; Spectrum Health East Campus
City
Grand Rapids
State/Province
Michigan
ZIP/Postal Code
49505
Country
United States
Facility Name
Adams Neurosurgery; Mid Michigan Medical Center
City
Saginaw
State/Province
Michigan
ZIP/Postal Code
48604
Country
United States
Facility Name
Henry Ford Hospital
City
West Bloomfield
State/Province
Michigan
ZIP/Postal Code
48322
Country
United States
Facility Name
The Orthopedic Center of St. Louis; Barnes Jewish West County Hospital
City
Chesterfield
State/Province
Missouri
ZIP/Postal Code
63017
Country
United States
Facility Name
Montana Neuro Science Institute; St. Patrick's Medical Center
City
Missoula
State/Province
Montana
ZIP/Postal Code
59802
Country
United States
Facility Name
University at Buffalo Neurosurgery, Inc. Kaleida Health-Buffalo General Medical center/Gates Vascular Institute
City
Buffalo
State/Province
New York
ZIP/Postal Code
14203
Country
United States
Facility Name
Buffalo Neurosurgery Group
City
West Seneca
State/Province
New York
ZIP/Postal Code
14224
Country
United States
Facility Name
Crystal Clinic, Inc.; Akron General Medical Center
City
Akron
State/Province
Ohio
ZIP/Postal Code
44333
Country
United States
Facility Name
Central Ohio Neurological Surgeons; Mt. Carmel East Hospital
City
Westerville
State/Province
Ohio
ZIP/Postal Code
43081
Country
United States
Facility Name
The Center Orthopaedic & Neurosurgical Care & Research
City
Bend
State/Province
Oregon
ZIP/Postal Code
97701
Country
United States
Facility Name
OAA Orthopaedic Specialists
City
Allentown
State/Province
Pennsylvania
ZIP/Postal Code
18104
Country
United States
Facility Name
Allegheny Neurosurgery; Washington Hospital
City
Pittsburgh
State/Province
Pennsylvania
ZIP/Postal Code
15212
Country
United States
Facility Name
Lexington Brain and Spine Institute
City
West Columbia
State/Province
South Carolina
ZIP/Postal Code
29169
Country
United States
Facility Name
Center for Sports Medicine and Orthopaedics; Memorial Hospital
City
Chattanooga
State/Province
Tennessee
ZIP/Postal Code
37404
Country
United States
Facility Name
East Tennessee Brain & Spine Center, Johnson City Medical Center
City
Johnson City
State/Province
Tennessee
ZIP/Postal Code
37604
Country
United States
Facility Name
Central Texas Spine Institute; Health South Surgical Center
City
Austin
State/Province
Texas
ZIP/Postal Code
78731
Country
United States
Facility Name
Virginia Brain and Spine; Winchester Medical Center
City
Winchester
State/Province
Virginia
ZIP/Postal Code
22601
Country
United States
Facility Name
West Virginia University; Ruby Memorial Hospital, WVU Hospitals, Inc.
City
Morgantown
State/Province
West Virginia
ZIP/Postal Code
26506
Country
United States

12. IPD Sharing Statement

Citations:
PubMed Identifier
31970051
Citation
Gornet MF, Lanman TH, Burkus JK, Hodges SD, McConnell JR, Dryer RF, Schranck FW, Copay AG. One-Level Versus 2-Level Treatment With Cervical Disc Arthroplasty or Fusion: Outcomes Up to 7 Years. Int J Spine Surg. 2019 Dec 31;13(6):551-560. doi: 10.14444/6076. eCollection 2019 Dec.
Results Reference
derived
PubMed Identifier
31226684
Citation
Gornet MF, Lanman TH, Burkus JK, Dryer RF, McConnell JR, Hodges SD, Schranck FW. Two-level cervical disc arthroplasty versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: 10-year outcomes of a prospective, randomized investigational device exemption clinical trial. J Neurosurg Spine. 2019 Jun 21:1-11. doi: 10.3171/2019.4.SPINE19157. Online ahead of print.
Results Reference
derived
PubMed Identifier
28387616
Citation
Lanman TH, Burkus JK, Dryer RG, Gornet MF, McConnell J, Hodges SD. Long-term clinical and radiographic outcomes of the Prestige LP artificial cervical disc replacement at 2 levels: results from a prospective randomized controlled clinical trial. J Neurosurg Spine. 2017 Jul;27(1):7-19. doi: 10.3171/2016.11.SPINE16746. Epub 2017 Apr 7.
Results Reference
derived
PubMed Identifier
28304237
Citation
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.
Results Reference
derived

Learn more about this trial

Study of the Safety and Effectiveness of the Artificial Cervical Disc - Low Profile Device at Two Adjacent Levels

We'll reach out to this number within 24 hrs