The Latest Lessons Learned from Retrieval Analyses of Ultra-High Molecular Weight Polyethylene, Metal-on-Metal, and Alternative Bearing Total Disc Replacements

Knowledge regarding the in vivo performance and periprosthetic tissue response of cervical and lumbar total disc replacements (TDRs) continues to expand. This review addresses the following 4 main questions: (1) What are the latest lessons learned from using polyethylene in large joints and how are they relevant to current TDRs? (2) What are the latest lessons learned regarding adverse local tissue reactions from metal-on-metal cobalt-chrome bearings in large joints and how are they relevant to current TDRs? (3) What advancements have been made in understanding the in vivo performance of alternative biomaterials, such as stainless steel and polycarbonate urethane, for TDRs in the past 5 years? (4) How has retrieval analysis of all these various artificial disc bearing technologies advanced the state-of-the-art in preclinical testing of TDRs? The study of explanted artificial discs and their associated tissues can help inform bearing selection as well as the design of future generations of disc arthroplasty. Analyzing retrieved artificial discs is also essential for validating preclinical test methods

A Prospective Study of Lumbar Facet Arthroplasty in the Treatment of Degenerative Spondylolisthesis and Stenosis: Early Cost-effective Assessment from the Total Posterior Spine System (TOPS™) IDE Study

Background: Given the increased attention to functional improvement in spine surgery as it relates to motion preservation, activities of daily living, and cost, it is critical to fully understand the healthcare economic impact of new devices being tested in large FDA randomized controlled trials (RCT). The purpose of this analysis was to comprehensively evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the novel Total Posterior Spine (TOPS™) System investigational device compared with the trial control group, standard transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of TOPS™ compared with TLIF. Methods: The study patient population was extracted from a multicenter RCT with current enrollment at n=121 with complete 1-year follow-up. The primary outcome was cost-effectiveness, expressed as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Secondary outcomes were health-related utility, presented as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and cost, calculated in US dollars. Analysis was conducted following Second Panel on Cost-Effectiveness Health and Medicine recommendations. The base case analysis utilized SF-36 survey data from the RCT. Both cost and QALY outcomes were discounted at a yearly rate of 3% to reflect their present value. A cohort Markov model was constructed to analyze perioperative and postoperative costs and QALYs for both TOPS™ and control groups. Scenario, probabilistic, and threshold sensitivity analyses were conducted to determine model discrimination and calibration. Results: The primary time horizon used to estimate cost and health utility was 2 years after index surgery. From a health system perspective, assuming a 50/50 split between Medicare and private payers, the TOPS™ cohort is cost-effective 2 years postoperatively ($6158/QALY) compared with control. At 6 years and beyond, TOPS™ becomes dominant, irrespective of payer mix and surgical setting. At willingness-to-pay thresholds of$100 000/QALY, 63% of all 5000 input parameter simulations favor TOPS, even with a $4000 upcharge vs TLIF. Discussion: The novel TOPS™ device is cost-effective compared with TLIF and becomes the dominant economic strategy over time. Conclusions: In the emerging, rapidly expanding field of value-based medicine, there will be an increased demand for these analyses, ensuring surgeons are empowered to make the best, most sustainable solutions for their patients and society

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.

OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to assess long-term clinical safety and effectiveness in patients undergoing anterior cervical surgery using the Prestige LP artificial disc replacement (ADR) prosthesis to treat degenerative cervical spine disease at 2 adjacent levels compared with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). METHODS A prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter FDA-approved clinical trial was conducted at 30 US centers, comparing the low-profile titanium ceramic composite-based Prestige LP ADR (n = 209) at 2 levels with ACDF (n = 188). Clinical and radiographic evaluations were completed preoperatively, intraoperatively, and at regular postoperative intervals to 84 months. The primary end point was overall success, a composite variable that included key safety and efficacy considerations. RESULTS At 84 months, the Prestige LP ADR demonstrated statistical superiority over fusion for overall success (observed rate 78.6% vs 62.7%; posterior probability of superiority [PPS] = 99.8%), Neck Disability Index success (87.0% vs 75.6%; PPS = 99.3%), and neurological success (91.6% vs 82.1%; PPS = 99.0%). All other study effectiveness measures were at least noninferior for ADR compared with ACDF. There was no statistically significant difference in the overall rate of implant-related or implant/surgical procedure-related adverse events up to 84 months (26.6% and 27.7%, respectively). However, the Prestige LP group had fewer serious (Grade 3 or 4) implant- or implant/surgical procedure-related adverse events (3.2% vs 7.2%, log hazard ratio [LHR] and 95% Bayesian credible interval [95% BCI] -1.19 [-2.29 to -0.15]). Patients in the Prestige LP group also underwent statistically significantly fewer second surgical procedures at the index levels (4.2%) than the fusion group (14.7%) (LHR -1.29 [95% BCI -2.12 to -0.46]). Angular range of motion at superior- and inferior-treated levels on average was maintained in the Prestige LP ADR group to 84 months. CONCLUSIONS The low-profile artificial cervical disc in this study, Prestige LP, implanted at 2 adjacent levels, maintains improved clinical outcomes and segmental motion 84 months after surgery and is a safe and effective alternative to fusion. Clinical trial registration no.: NCT00637156 (clinicaltrials.gov)

Two-level cervical disc arthroplasty versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: 10-year outcomes of a prospective, randomized investigational device exemption clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: The authors assessed the 10-year clinical safety and effectiveness of cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) to treat degenerative cervical spine disease at 2 adjacent levels compared to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). METHODS: A prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter FDA-approved clinical trial was conducted comparing the low-profile titanium ceramic composite-based Prestige LP Cervical Disc (n = 209) at two levels with ACDF (n = 188). Ten-year follow-up data from a postapproval study were available on 148 CDA and 118 ACDF patients and are reported here. Clinical and radiographic evaluations were completed preoperatively, intraoperatively, and at regular postoperative follow-up intervals for up to 10 years. The primary endpoint was overall success, a composite variable that included key safety and efficacy considerations. Ten-year follow-up rates were 86.0% for CDA and 84.9% for ACDF. RESULTS: From 2 to 10 years, CDA demonstrated statistical superiority over ACDF for overall success, with rates at 10 years of 80.4% versus 62.2%, respectively (posterior probability of superiority [PPS] = 99.9%). Neck Disability Index (NDI) success was also superior, with rates at 10 years of 88.4% versus 76.5% (PPS = 99.5%), as was neurological success (92.6% vs 86.1%; PPS = 95.6%). Improvements from preoperative results in NDI and neck pain scores were consistently statistically superior for CDA compared to ACDF. All other study effectiveness measures were at least noninferior for CDA compared to ACDF through the 10-year follow-up period, including disc height. Mean angular ranges of motion at treated levels were maintained in the CDA group for up to 10 years. The rates of grade IV heterotopic ossification (HO) at the superior and inferior levels were 8.2% and 10.3%, respectively. The rate of severe HO (grade III or IV) did not increase significantly from 7 years (42.4%) to 10 years (39.0%). The CDA group had fewer serious (grade 3-4) implant-related or implant/surgical procedure-related adverse events (3.8% vs 8.1%; posterior mean 95% Bayesian credible interval [BCI] of the log hazard ratio [LHR] -0.92 [-1.88, -0.01]). The CDA group also had statistically fewer secondary surgical procedures at the index levels (4.7%) than the ACDF group (17.6%) (LHR [95% BCI] -1.39 [-2.15, -0.61]) as well as at adjacent levels (9.0% vs 17.9%). CONCLUSIONS: The Prestige LP Cervical Disc, implanted at two adjacent levels, maintains improved clinical outcomes and segmental motion 10 years after surgery and is a safe and effective alternative to fusion.Clinical trial registration no.: NCT00637156 (clinicaltrials.gov)

Occurrence and clinical implications of heterotopic ossification after cervical disc arthroplasty with the Prestige LP Cervical Disc at 2 contiguous levels.

OBJECTIVE: The authors sought to assess the impact of heterotopic ossification (HO) on clinical outcomes and angular range of motion (ROM) after cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) performed with the Prestige LP Cervical Disc (Prestige LP disc) at 2 levels. METHODS: HO was assessed and graded from 0 to IV for increasing severity on lateral neutral radiographs at each visit in 209 patients who underwent implantation of Prestige LP discs at 2 cervical levels in a clinical trial with extended 10-year follow-up. ROM was compared by using HO grade, and clinical outcomes were compared between HO subgroups (grade 0-II vs III/IV) based on HO severity at 2 and 10 years after surgery. RESULTS: The grade III/IV HO incidence at either or both index levels was 24.2% (48/198) at 2 years and 39.0% (57/146) at 10 years. No statistical difference was found in overall success; neurological success; or Neck Disability Index (NDI), neck pain, arm pain, or SF-36 Physical Component Summary (PCS) scores between the HO subgroups (grade 0-II vs III/IV) at either 2 or 10 years. The cumulative rate of possible implant-related adverse events (AEs) was higher in patients having grade III/IV HO at 2 years (56.3%) and 10 years (47.8%) compared with those having grade 0-II HO at 2 years (24.4%) and 10 years (17.9%), specifically in 2 subcategories: spinal events and HOs reported by the investigators. No statistical difference was found between the HO subgroups in possible implant-related serious AEs or secondary surgeries at the index or adjacent levels. The average angular ROMs at index levels were lower in subjects with higher-grade HO at 2 and 10 years. The average ROMs at the superior level were 8.8°, 6.6°, 3.2°, and 0.3°, respectively, for the HO grade 0/I, II, III, and IV groups at 10 years, and 7.9°, 6.2°, 3.7°, and 0.6°, respectively, at the inferior level. CONCLUSIONS: Radiographically severe (grade III or IV) HO after CDA with the Prestige LP disc at 2 levels did not significantly affect efficacy or safety outcomes (severe AEs or secondary surgeries). However, severe HO, particularly grade IV HO, significantly limited ROM, as expected